1. #27561
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    I honestly don't know what's wrong with the German's on this issue? Are they really willing to sacrifice the safety of Europe for their precious ruZZian gas?
    Germany is buying exactly 0 russian gas anymore.

  2. #27562
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post

    We also broke them too hard after WW2.
    I really don't think that's the case.

    During the Cold War both West and East Germany militarized the ever living shit out of themselves.

    Armed to the teeth.

    It's partially why half of Europe to this days runs mostly German gear and the other half bought metric tons of East German gear after reunification.

    All that is a legacy of both Germanies going "Weapons industry and military purchasing goes BRRRRRR" from the 1960s to 1989.

    This utter and complete spinelessness is a post Cold War, post reunification thing.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    No. That is not true, at least according to multiple surveys.
    The German government gaslighting its own population is partially why the population, in good Germanic tradition, toes the government line.

    "If the Chancellor says we're giving enough and doing everything possible it must be true."

  3. #27563
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    Because the official reasoning given is utterly inconsistent, self contradictory, or almost comically nonsensical.
    The explanation is pretty simple:
    Germany doesn't want to take a leading role on anything but economic matters.

    Also, internal politics play a role here, as Russia is / was viewed generally favorable in east germany, an area where basically any party that isn't far right or far left struggles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    If Baerbock had been in charge they would already be there. It days a lot when the leader of the Greens is more supportive of a war than you are.
    Funny enough, it was the greens that refused to sent actual weapons to Ukraine before the Invasion.
    Vice Cancellor Habeck (also Green) visited Ukraine before the Invasion, broke party line by arguing that they should sent them weapons and got shat on by his own party for saying that.

    Also, let's move back like a year.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/berl...become-target/

    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    That's why a country should have able people at the top of the goverment to convince the population that it is the correct move to send them
    You're not going to undo decades of "weapons=bad" within a year.

    West Germans literally made up the phrase "better red than dead" during the Cold war (altough the inverted phrase existed much earlier).

  4. #27564
    Sunak has confirmed the UK will send around a dozen Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-...ost_type=share

  5. #27565
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    You're not going to undo decades of "weapons=bad" within a year.

    West Germans literally made up the phrase "better red than dead" during the Cold war (altough the inverted phrase existed much earlier).
    The poster above you says the exact opposite about West- and East Germany arming themselves to the teeth during the cold war.
    I think you are both incorrect and it doesn't matter in the slightest.

    The way you argue sounds like the population doesn't want a proper military or whatever.
    But that's not true. This is being surveyed rather frequently and most germans stand behind the Bundeswehr and after 2014 the popular demand for new weapons (like drones etc.) increased significantly. (and has always been a relative majority for a decade or longer)

    Same thing about funding.
    Just as many want more funding for the military as they want the same amount of funding they currently have. Only a *very* small minority (<15%) want less funding.
    And the majority of people asked, want Germany to take a more active role in international security (NATO etc.)
    Especially the Trump-era lead to that.
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2023-01-14 at 12:50 PM.

  6. #27566
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    The poster above you says the exact opposite about west and east germany arming themselves to the teeth during the cold war.
    I don't see that, he claimed that most people want to deliver tanks right now to Ukraine, nothing about the Cold war.

    Putting aside that during the Cold war, neither West nor East Germany were truly sovereign nations and the East was part of the Soviet Bloc.

  7. #27567
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    I don't see that, he claimed that most people want to deliver tanks right now to Ukraine, nothing about the Cold war.

    Putting aside that during the Cold war, neither West nor East Germany were truly sovereign nations and the East was part of the Soviet Bloc.
    Well, this

    During the Cold War both West and East Germany militarized the ever living shit out of themselves.

    Armed to the teeth.
    But I agree with you on them not being truely sovereign, that's why I disagreed with both of you.
    What happened in East Germany was hardly the will of the people (even it had been, it has never been their decision)
    And West Germany was heavily influenced by America and their joint military research etc. to the point that it was basically only possible due to that, and required due to that.

    However, there is simply no (universal) mindset about "weapons=bad" in Germany, and hasn't been for over a decade.

    edit: just googling it right now, the BMVg even does surveys on that themselves it seems. (on what Germans think about the Bundeswehr)
    2021 only 28% thought that the equipment of the Bundeswehr is sufficient.

    42% want an increase in funding, 40% want the same amount of funding, 12% want less funding and I guess the rest just doesn't know what to do.

    edit2: searching about this further leads to statistics showing that the population of Germany seems to have pretty much the *exact* mindset of any other EU country. In fact, the biggest outlier is actually Italy, it's massively against weapon transports it seems and has been since the war started.
    https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/...elt-nur-leicht

    But I have to admit I'm not going much into how the data was aquired or whatever. But the numbers do seem at least somewhat realistic.
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2023-01-14 at 01:06 PM.

  8. #27568
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    Well, this
    My bad then.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    However, there is simply no mindset about "weapons=bad" in Germany, and hasn't been for over a decade.
    I disagree on this, because then you would have seen weapon deliveries happening before the invasion, where Germany broadly refused to send anything beyond humanitarian aid.

  9. #27569
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    I disagree on this, because then you would have seen weapon deliveries happening before the invasion, where Germany broadly refused to send anything beyond humanitarian aid.
    Well, in my opinion, there are multiple things wrong with that assumption.

    not ranked, but in random order:

    1. Germany isn't lead just by it's people imho, it's lead by companies alongside them and while it's not as bad as in other countries, you can bet your ass that there is enough "pressure" (aka bribes that are disguised as something else) on politicians to prevent that.
    Misinformation reigns supreme just like in any other country.

    2. People that vote are old. Young people hardly vote in this country. Old voters will vote for what they voted for during their whole life. It almost doesn't matter if they are aligning differently now, than what they stood for back then.
    Hardcore old farts vote for the AFD now though.
    Obviously it's "our" own fault. But in the end, this too isn't much different in other countries. See America for example. If you vote red, you always vote red, if you vote blue, you always vote blue. Doesn't matter if it's the senile geezer that is currently leading the country, or the other one before it. Not everyone of course because then the outcome would never change, but a lot of people think that way.
    Either way, both candidates were horrible.
    But over there it's a 2 party system. That's what happens. "Better vote for my party, no matter who is going to be president"
    People aren't that different after all, most do it I'd assume, even if it's not the right thing to do. "OUT OF SPITE" is probably why they are doing it.

    3. The Ukraine war before the "2nd" invasion was mostly, for a lack of a better word, unknown to most Germans. I know for a fact that you didn't hear jack shit about it after Crimea "switched sides" a week or two later.
    No one talked about it, most people thought the Ukraine is a shitty country in the first place. Most people still consider Ukraine as part of Russia in the back of their heads... not necessarily as part of the state itself, but the people LIVING in Ukraine are "Russians".
    It's why arguments like "Oh Russia suffered so much during WW2" etc. etc. yada yada show up. The parts were the real shit was going on, was mostly in what is now considered (for example) Ukraine.
    I only mention this to visualize how many people think, not to downscale whatever happened on Russia-today territory or whatever.

    The people just don't know much about what is happening, if Ukraine required more weapons before 2014 (I don't think they did, because 2014 Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine of today, it's hard to justify -or maybe I'm going too far back and you meant the recent/2nd wave invasion?) then it's the job of a politician to actually convince the people. But with real arguments, not lies and arguments coming from the industry or whoever gives them that nice bonus money.
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2023-01-14 at 01:36 PM.

  10. #27570
    Over 9000! zealo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    9,528
    @KrayZ33

    A lot of people don't vote "for" parties in two party systems, but against what they would prefer even less of the options that are at hand.

    It's why the election in 2020 in the US had voter turnout not seen in decades, despite Biden not really being an all that amazing candidate.

  11. #27571
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    @KrayZ33

    A lot of people don't vote "for" parties in two party systems, but against what they would prefer even less of the options that are at hand.

    It's why the election in 2020 in the US had voter turnout not seen in decades, despite Biden not really being an all that amazing candidate.
    Either way, they throw their vote towards someone that they don't want to be president either, instead of voting for what they actually want, even if that party/president loses the election. That's why the 2 party system came into place in the first place, most likely. At least that's how I see it. (but I'm not going to pretend I know the political history of that country to a reasonable extent from before the year 2000, it's just what I assume would happen if you do it like that)
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2023-01-14 at 01:45 PM.

  12. #27572
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    The explanation is pretty simple:
    Germany doesn't want to take a leading role on anything but economic matters.
    And literally, and I mean literally nobody is asking them to take the lead on anything.

    Poland, Finland, Spain have all said "We will provide the tanks." What Germany is doing is BLOCKING these deliveries.

    Half of Europe is running Leopard 2 tanks, Germany has been selling them left and right to NATO and NATO aligned countries, but when Germany sells these tanks it comes with a contractual re-sale export restriction. That contractual clause is controlled by the German state.

    The German industry (the manufacturers like Rhinemetall) have been saying since spring that they have the production capacity to supply Ukraine with all sorts of shit, but they of course need permission first to ramp up the production, and other countries that have been buying tanks and equipment from Germany have been for a while saying that "We will give them the tanks, the training and the spare parts from our own stocks". What's missing is the German government lifting the export restriction.

    So this line that "We only want to do this as part of a coalition" and bla bla bla is literal horseshit.

    Germany is single handed blocking the tank deliveries. We got to the point where people aren't even asking Germany to give any tanks, just for Germany to allow others to supply the tanks, and they are blocking even that.

    I think this also ties into one of the many reasons why now Poland is looking at Korea for tanks. I'm pretty sure the government in Warsaw is now thinking if they were in Ukraine's position after buying all that German gear, will the German government block spare parts, replacements and munitions "to give peace a chance"?

    Because I honestly think that THIS German government would very much try.
    Last edited by Elder Millennial; 2023-01-14 at 02:10 PM.

  13. #27573
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    1. Germany isn't lead just by it's people imho, it's lead by companies alongside them and while it's not as bad as in other countries, you can bet your ass that there is enough "pressure" (aka bribes that are disguised as something else) on politicians to prevent that.
    Misinformation reigns supreme just like in any other country.
    And selling weapons to other nations aren't a business decision?

    Sorry, but i fail to see that argument as an explanation why Germany has NOT delivered weapon systems.
    If any Nation wants to send German made equipment to Ukraine, then they'll have to restock, at which point german companies can make quite the profit.

    You can make an argument about rising energy costs as "recoil" of that, but then you'd have at best a opposing situation where any company involved in weapons manufacture making a profit vs. those that are just getting fucked by rising energy cost.

    Check out stock for Rheinmetall, that thing doubled its value the day Russia invaded Ukraine.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    2. People that vote are old. Young people hardly vote in this country. Old voters will vote for what they voted for during their whole life. It almost doesn't matter if they are aligning differently now, than what they stood for back then.
    As far as i know, the younger generation is more present in parties such as the Green party - where weapon deliveries has been a very tough sell up until Putin invaded Ukraine (and still is, to be frank).

    Just because some of the Greens ministers are arguing for weapon deliveries, doesn't mean their entire party is backing them.
    It's also easy to argue for those when you know that Scholz as Chancellor will not go along as easily, i doubt if it came solely down to Green's, they would deliver all the stuff Ukraine wants - because they were also pushing against it before and have argued against weapon deliveries in crises areas for a long time.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    Hardcore old farts vote for the AFD now though.
    I'd say that is partially circumstancal, AFD is strong in the east, the east's population is on average much older because young people either are leaving or have left after reuinification.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    See America for example. If you vote red, you always vote red, if you vote blue, you always vote blue.
    I find this has a rather loose connection and while partially true, doesn't detract from the fact that german parties rarely presented themselves as "we're fine with weapon deliveries".
    It's often been attempted to brush it under the table because delivering weapon systems to say Saudi Arabia may be good for business, but sure as shit is not a good look.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    3. The Ukraine war before the "2nd" invasion was mostly, for a lack of a better word, unknown to most Germans. I know for a fact that you didn't hear jack shit about it after Crimea "switched sides" a week or two later.
    And that stance is somehow unique to germany?
    The world went along when Russia then hosted the Football world cup in 2018.

    The big mistake that Germany made was its reliance for energy on Russia, but beyond that, i don't see the unique stance of Germany in that regard.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    The people just don't know much about what is happening, if Ukraine required more weapons before 2014 (I don't think they did, because 2014 Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine of today, it's hard to justify -or maybe I'm going too far back and you meant the recent/2nd wave invasion?) then it's the job of a politician to actually convince the people. But with real arguments, not lies and arguments coming from the industry or whoever gives them that nice bonus money.
    You said it yourself, most people didn't give a shit.
    So by that, you're already fighting an uphill battle as politician, then furthermore:
    1. You would've pissed off any Russia leaning group
    2. You would've pissed off any pacifist group
    3. You'd be going against party line of any mainstream party

    At which point, good luck winning any party internal or regular elections.

    Politics is frankly a business where you often can not win on your own and need the right moment to have it happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    And literally, and I mean literally nobody is asking them to take the lead on anything.
    Because the de facto difference between delivering weapons yourself and allowing others to deliver weapons you sold them is quite minimal, you have German tanks in Ukraine either way.

    Else it would be pointless to even include the manufacturer in the decision process.

    If a country is basically arming the enterity of a military coalition and their approval is necessary for either deployment or delivery to another nation, then that nation effectively takes on a leading role because they can decide which conflicts that military coalition can engage and to what degree.

    And Germany drives this two lane course of wanting to get a big share of the arms manufacturer business (because money), but shies away from making any hard decision related to that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    I think this also ties into one of the many reasons why now Poland is looking at Korea for tanks. I'm pretty sure the government in Warsaw is now thinking if they were in Ukraine's position after buying all that German gear, will the German government block spare parts, replacements and munitions "to give peace a chance"?

    Because I honestly think that THIS German government would very much try.
    Bit of a strange hypothetical scenario because Poland is a Nato Member and if Poland were ever to come under attack, then you'd have article 5.
    Withholding / delaying military aid would pretty much be a violation of that article 5.

    It's possible of course, but that would result in Germany getting booted out of Nato.
    Last edited by Kralljin; 2023-01-14 at 02:48 PM.

  14. #27574
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Bit of a strange hypothetical scenario because Poland is a Nato Member and if Poland were ever to come under attack, then you'd have article 5.
    Withholding / delaying military aid would pretty much be a violation of that article 5.

    It's possible of course, but that would result in Germany getting booted out of Nato.
    There's no legal mechanism for booting a country from NATO. Nevertheless if you're Poland or a Baltic country, do you want to ever take the risk? Like having a Donald Trump in the White House and an Olaf Scholz in the German chancellery?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Sunak has confirmed the UK will send around a dozen Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-...ost_type=share
    Queue the Germans coming up with some new excuse to block Poland and Finland from giving any Leopard 2.

  15. #27575
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    Nevertheless if you're Poland or a Baltic country, do you want to ever take the risk? Like having a Donald Trump in the White House and an Olaf Scholz in the German chancellery?
    Comparing Scholz to Trump disingenuous.

    Scholz is Merkel 2.0, which follows the idiom of "leading from behind".

  16. #27576
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Comparing Scholz to Trump disingenuous.

    Scholz is Merkel 2.0, which follows the idiom of "leading from behind".
    Really? Cause Merkel often led from the front, tho that was also generally because no one else in the EU was going to lead except Macron, and no one wants him to.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  17. #27577
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Comparing Scholz to Trump disingenuous.

    Scholz is Merkel 2.0, which follows the idiom of "leading from behind".
    I wasn't comparing. I was highlighting two sides of the same problem. A potentially unreliable NATO.

    If you're Poland or a Baltic country, what will you do if you are under attack while the US is run by an administration that wants to undermine NATO, likes Putin and is unwilling to go to war for you, while Germany is lead by a government that is unwilling to take any responsibility for anything and falls back to appeasement as its first instinct?

    Do you want to be dependent on German arms then?

    You've missed my point so many times by now, I'm starting to think it's intentional.

  18. #27578
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    There's no legal mechanism for booting a country from NATO. Nevertheless if you're Poland or a Baltic country, do you want to ever take the risk? Like having a Donald Trump in the White House and an Olaf Scholz in the German chancellery?

    - - - Updated - - -
    Nothing happened during this invasion that would make Germany look like it would hesitate to assist NATO allies during a defensive war.
    If you think otherwise, think again... because it's silly. The leaders of Germany unwilling to allow Leopard tanks to be sent to Ukraine has nothing to do with it.
    You are questioning the reliability of a country that has no legal obligation to assist Ukraine, but does so anyways, in huge amounts as well.
    On top of that, it supplies NATO countries with Leopard 2 tanks for free...or semi-free, they gave up their shitty Soviet-era tanks to Ukraine and got/get Leopard 2 tanks instead - paid by Germany.

    Do you also doubt France and their position in NATO?
    Last edited by KrayZ33; 2023-01-14 at 04:18 PM.

  19. #27579
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    Really? Cause Merkel often led from the front, tho that was also generally because no one else in the EU was going to lead except Macron, and no one wants him to.
    Eh, not really.

    For example, back during Schröder's day, a decree was made that Germany will phase out Nuclear energy until 2022.
    Then in 2010, Merkel delayed that decree for another 12 years.
    Then in 2011 Fukushima happened.
    Merkel made a U-Turn and pulled out the original plan that germany stops doing Nuclear in 2022.

    Merkel, at least internally, rarely committed to anything and often seemed to wait out where the wind the is blowing from and then chose her position (which she also changed as the wind turn again).

    I call Scholz Merkel 2.0 because Merkel often employed during elections a strategy of not even addressing any opponents or any real policy stances, Scholz during 2021 elections employed a similiar strategy of not really committing to anything (except raising minimum wage) and also ignoring his opponents.
    Which worked out because both CDU and Green stumbled over their candidates incompetence.

    The whole energy crisis is arguably a good example, she didn't take it in a much different direction (despite some early promises about doing something climate change), but basically doubled down on the depedence on Russia established by the previous government and didn't even reconsider her stance after 2014 when Russia invaded crimea.
    Despite the fact that Merkel should really know what sort of assbag Putin is, as once during a photo shoot with her a dog stumbled into the room and Merkel has a fear of dogs.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/12/e...dog/index.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Elder Millennial View Post
    I wasn't comparing. I was highlighting two sides of the same problem. A potentially unreliable NATO.

    If you're Poland or a Baltic country, what will you do if you are under attack while the US is run by an administration that wants to undermine NATO, likes Putin and is unwilling to go to war for you, while Germany is lead by a government that is unwilling to take any responsibility for anything and falls back to appeasement as its first instinct?
    The point is that the relation between Poland and Germany is different than the one between Germany and Ukraine.
    If Germany refuses to sent aid to the poles, then Nato is effectively dead to the Germans, an alliance they cannot afford to lose because when it comes to defensive, they are completely reliant on the US and other western Allies.
    At which point they would have to jump into the bed with Putin, and unless you can sufficiently defend yourself against him, you'll be on the next menu.

    I cannot outrule on the basis that it's physically possible, but abandoning a Nato Ally is something entirely different than refusing to send certain weapons to another nation.

    Let's not also forget that the threat of buying Tanks from another nation may be a political ploy, it's not like it's foreign to the poles use germany as a "scapegoat", considering they only recently demanded reparations for the polish dead in WW2.
    Last edited by Kralljin; 2023-01-14 at 05:40 PM.

  20. #27580
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post

    The point is that the relation between Poland and Germany is different than the one between Germany and Ukraine.
    If Germany refuses to sent aid to the poles, then Nato is effectively dead to the Germans, an alliance they cannot afford to lose because when it comes to defensive, they are completely reliant on the US and other western Allies.
    At which point they would have to jump into the bed with Putin, and unless you can sufficiently defend yourself against him, you'll be on the next menu.

    I cannot outrule on the basis that it's physically possible, but abandoning a Nato Ally is something entirely different than refusing to send certain weapons to another nation.

    Let's not also forget that the threat of buying Tanks from another nation may be a political ploy, it's not like it's foreign to the poles use germany as a "scapegoat", considering they only recently demanded reparations for the polish dead in WW2.
    The thing is; everyone in Europe either gives Ukraine enough equipment to BTFO russia, or russia takes over Ukraine and then attacks a NATO country(Baltics or Poland) next, and a lot more people will die.

    Everyone should get this through their heads sooner rather than later.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •