Jump to content

A disgruntled Canadian


CalAB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before I begin with my little tirade here I want to thank Germany for the use of their tanks through Sweden, as a Canadian watching our gents bite the bullet.

It’s common knowledge that Germany along with Japan signed an internal agreement never to use force as an aggressor ever again after WW2.

That being said I’m getting real tired of the Germans talking tough when it comes to actual combat. Germany is living on feedback from countries with soldiers dying on the front lines.

So Far the amount of NATO countries actually involved in combat in Afghanistan do not include Germany unless you count the ammo dump 20 kilometers behind front lines. I salute the technology that Rheinmetall has brought us but without real world combat experience Germany is sucking hind tit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm.

I can understand that the (so far) non-deployment of German combat forces to the South doesn't meet the taste of all our allies. However I cannot agree to this general bashing.

-When the Bundeswehr marched into Kosovo in 99, a reinforced tank company was the spearhead into Pristina, with no idea what to find and how the Serbs would react. The option of high-intensity combat was on the table for a long time. So enough of this nonsense that German forces are not allowed to use force. Even in Afghanistan they demonstrated it in the past years, in smaller actions but they did shoot.

-Germany's commitment to the ISAF mission was widely greeted and respected when it began. It took responsibility first for Kabul and then steadily expanded its area. And each step of that expansion was seen as great risk by all allies. It turned out better than anticipated(thank god) but as Operation Harekate Yolo has shown, not even the North is a "safe haven" for ISAF/NATO troops anymore. And it never was. Now Germany has taken control of the QRF and Bundeswehr troops will fight when they get the call.

-German soldiers did die through enemy actions. Just for those who didn't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan

14 out of 29 attributed to enemy actions speaks for itself.

It's not the fault of the German soldiers that they are not experiencing the same kind of combat like Canada or Denmark or UK in the South. Politics has put alot of restrictions on the German ISAF mission, yes. But alot of them were taken back through the years. I know quite well that initially noone wanted to go beyond Kabul. Now Germany controls most of the northern part. The troop size has been steadily raised and will so even more. It might well be that in one or two years from now we see a German task force attached to one of the battle groups in the south. Germany does its share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Before I begin with my little tirade here I want to thank Germany for the use of their tanks through Sweden, as a Canadian watching our gents bite the bullet.

Minor nitpick: You're going to receive them from The Netherlands. Close by, but not quite Sweden (...yet).

It’s common knowledge that Germany along with Japan signed an internal agreement never to use force as an aggressor ever again after WW2.

Actually, international law forbids to wage aggression wars, and the security council is supposed to intervene if a UN member state attacks another (it doesn't always happen, and usually both parties will claim that they are the defenders, yadda yadda - but at least the basic idea behind it, and one of the fundamental stones of the Nuremberg trials is that waging an aggressive ware in itself is illegal). A peculiarity in Germany is that it is a part of the constitution that even the preparation of an aggressive war is a violation of the German constitution, so everybody caught in such activity will be sent straight into jail (not that there is precedence yet).

While I, personally, don't exactly like the way how loads are balanced in Afghanistan, ultimately the WW2 allies are reaping what they sowed. They tried everything in reeducation and the design of our constitution to pacify us Germans into antimilitaristic weaklings which we now are. NATO was first founded as an alliance to keep Germany down and the commies out; the first part was dropped as soon as it became apparent that Germany was needed in order to achieve the second goal. But even then Germany has signed a number of international treaties that, even today, prevent us from building aircraft carriers, a nuclear force (not that we would want either), sharks with laser beams, etc. We have carrier systems for nuclear weapons, but the actual warheads always were US property and in US custody.

In short, the WW2 allies made sure that Germany would only be able to rebuild strictly conventional armed forces, embedded it in NATO structures to prevent (uh, strike that; set "make it unnecessary") the build-up of a fully capable air force and blue-water navy. Now that the shit has hit the fan you're blinkered by the fact that you were quite successful in pacifying Germany.

Changing the public attitude is a major political ambition. I'm not saying that the German parliament couldn't do more to make clear to the German population why the engagement in Afghanistan is necessary and what it actually means to be part of an alliance in rough times. Absolutely, yes. But, like others wrote before, it's not as if we were idly standing by, hand in pockets, whistling.

That being said I’m getting real tired of the Germans talking tough when it comes to actual combat.

Examples, please. Who said what, when, and is that person actually representative for Germans in general or the German Bundeswehr in particular. I'm sure there are some fools out there doing the talk without doing the walk - just like I have met stupid loudmouths about everywhere in the world. Bragging, even unsubstantiated bragging, is part of the human nature. That doesn't make it any better, but the best way to deal with it is either to ignore it or to speak up to the loudmouth himself.

:) Just my two cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, international law forbids to wage aggression wars, and the security council is supposed to intervene if a UN member state attacks another

Unless your country happens to be in Africa or South America, then it's ok to slaughter people wholesale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too damn right, Methinks we should revoke Zimbawe's independence.

"Right well you seem to have made a complete F**king hash of it, so we're taking over....again."

Wrong country... there is far more financial gain from usurping Nigeria - might even stabilize the price of oil a bit.

Unless, of course, the motive is humanitarian.

Indeed though, African slaughters are entirely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to whom ever read my post. I was a little emotional at that time on account of my Uncles diagnosis with inoperable lung cancer and a life long friends talk. Thanks for putting up with my shite gents.

Salute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...