Do we need to re-think NATO?

[uafanataum]

There are all kinds countries waiting on the wings to fill the vacuum if NATO goes away (France, Russia, Germany), each country in its own way. Russia wants to carve countries off the Atlantic alliance and into a Eurasian alliance. Pragmatic eastern Europeans will stick a finger in the wind and relucantly re-orient towards Moscow to avoid getting "the Ukraine treatment."

France would love to re-assert the EU as a military alliance, one without the United States, and one in which France would carry relatively more weight. I believe that this Franco-alliance, especially if the Brits were to leave the EU & NATO, would be less pernicious than the Russian-lead one, but it would also be callously and perhaps reflexively anti-American.

A Germany-led alliance would be dangerous. Germany already dominates Europe economically. Add military dominance and the studious labor at excising fascism from the German psyche might prove to be shallow, and the dormant National Socialist in the German soul might re-emerge, probably without the death camps, but remaining hyperaggressive in its acquisitiveness.

Many in Europe will be quite interested in maintaining NATO, even though the US is routinely badmouthed. I attribute this to "Alabama thinking": people tend to be hypercritical of the top dog. In the case of Europe, however, the top dog is keeping the Russian bear at bay.

At the end of the day, the question is, does NATO further US interests. I believe it does.

Just wondering why you think a nation that has shown no violent tendencies in 70 years should still be regarded that way.

 

[Highway59]

Thought this was a funny bit by Norm MacDonald about Germany....

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Reading a book about Soviet disinformation right now. A pre-WW II German socialist who was imprisoned by the Nazis, and spent the immediate post-war years in East Germany.
He "escaped" to the West and worked his way up the West German bureaucracy. Nominated for a key in in the West German intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), some said, "Hang on. Not sure of his loyalties."
The German left said, "Shame on you! He is as loyal to West Germany as anybody. You can't decline his nomination just because he had the misfortune of being born in the eastern part of Germany."
He was accepted into the key intelligence position and guess what? It later turned out he was a Soviet spy, passing key info to the Soviets and East Germans about West German intelligence activities, intelligence summaries, what they knew of Soviet spies and Soviet disinformation, etc.
Who'd'a thunk it?

My SIL, who was head of MI for all southern Germany...

 

[Tidewater]

Just wondering why you think a nation that has shown no violent tendencies in 70 years should still be regarded that way.

What Germany?
I've had enough candidate conversations with Germans to hear the talk about dominating Europe, impatience with other Europeans countries holding Germany back, etc.
Most Germans will publicly disavow militarism and a desire to change European boundaries, but enough little jokes about conquering Europe economically, and knowing how hard Germans work compared to other nationalities in Europe, how much of the burden of the EU Germany is shouldering, etc.
I do not think that a revival of the NSDAP is around the corner. Most Germans acknowledge Germany was defeated in 1945, deserved to be defeated in 1945, and since 1989, Germany has recovered (most of) her lost territories (less Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia). But in a Europe in which America is not playing a role (the question at hand), and one in which the second largest economy in Europe (the UK) may well secede and resume her splendid isolation (the "Brexit"), is a Europe in which the Franco-German rivalry might resume and I believe Germany would dominate that rivalry fairly handily. (GDP comparison France: $2.3 trillion, Germany $3.2 trillion, and the gap has been growing over the last few years. The US, by comparison, is $15.68 trillion.) How long would that economic imbalance have to grow before the Germans would try to turn that economic might into some political muscle? I don't know.

A Europe in which the US is involved is better for the US, better for Europe.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

What Germany?
I've had enough candidate conversations with German to hear the talk about dominating Europe, impatience with other Europeans countries holding Germany back, etc.
Most Germans will publicly disavow militarism and a desire to change European boundaries, but enough little jokes about conquering Europe economically, and knowing how hard Germans work compared to other nationalities in Europe, how much of the burden of the EU Germany is shouldering, etc.
I do not think that a revival of the NSDAP is around the corner. Most Germans acknowledge Germany was defeated in 1945, deserved to be defeated in 1945, but since 1989, Germany has recovered (most of) her lost territories (less Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia). But in a Europe in which America is not playing a role (the question at hand), and one in which the second largest economy in Europe (the UK) may well secede and resume her splendid isolation (the "Brexit"), is a Europe in which the Franco-German rivalry might resume and I believe Germany would dominate that rivalry fairly handily. (GDP comparison France: $2.3 trillion, Germany $3.2 trillion, and the gap has been growing over the last few years. The US, by comparison, is $15.68 trillion.) How long would that economic imbalance have to grow before the Germans would try to turn that economic might into some political muscle? I don't know.

A Europe in which the US is involved is better for the US, better for Europe.

Even as someone who aligned more closely with Paul on foreign policy than any other candidate, I have to agree with this...

 

[Tidewater]

Even as someone who aligned more closely with Paul on foreign policy than any other candidate, I have to agree with this...

I have to say, dealing with the Bundeswehr, I find German soldiers smart, hardworking, disciplined and tough. Having defeated their fathers and grandfathers, I'd rather not make it best two out of three. If their fathers and grandfathers were that good, I'm surprised we defeated them.
Then again, we had 200 million screaming Russians on our side and it cost Ivan 20 million dead to win.

 

[uafanataum]

I have to say, dealing with the Bundeswehr, I find German soldiers smart, hardworking, disciplined and tough. Having defeated their fathers and grandfathers, I'd rather not make it best two out of three. If their fathers and grandfathers were that good, I'm surprised we defeated them.
Then again, we had 200 million screaming Russians on our side and it cost Ivan 20 million dead to win.

I hung out with German soldiers a few times and found them to be the most tolerable of all Europeans (I cannot stand French). They whooped my butt at pool a few times. Anyway, I liked them well enough and did not get the sense they wanted to dominate others, except at pool. Until you pointed out the differences in GDP I was more worried about the French because they wanted to spearhead the conflict in Libya and I believe wanted to have more influence than the US. They also did some military excursions into some African muslim country I cannot think of a few years ago. I always thought yhe French were more power hungry. It does not matter anyway unless a crazy person gets elected we will not pull out of Europe.

 

[81usaf92]

Just wondering why you think a nation that has shown no violent tendencies in 70 years should still be regarded that way.

Germany is where radical ideas are tested, prophicised, and implemented. Even Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky all were in agreement that Germany would be the place where communism would be shown in all of its grandness and it would be where worldwide communism would really kickoff. If Hitler had not came swooping in uninvited then it's highly likely that the German communists would've overthrew the Weimar instead. Everyone wants to focus on Hitler's ousting of the Jews, but his first targets after the failed beer hall takeover was the communists within the political arena.

But what does this have to deal with Germany today??? Germany is the melting pot of radical ideas and their people have a rich sense of history from ending the Roman Empire's conquest of taking over world to Bismarck ending the French's dominance on the European mainland. If one of these extreme ideas taps into their strong cultural and historical ties then it can escalate very quickly. Heck even the Protestant movement began there without any involvement of other major European countries.The only reason Germany hasn't been a radical country since 45 is the US and Russian involvement in preventing it.

 

[uafanataum]

Germany is where radical ideas are tested, prophicised, and implemented. Even Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky all were in agreement that Germany would be the place where communism would be shown in all of its grandness and it would be where worldwide communism would really kickoff. If Hitler had not came swooping in uninvited then it's highly likely that the German communists would've overthrew the Weimar instead. Everyone wants to focus on Hitler's ousting of the Jews, but his first targets after the failed beer hall takeover was the communists within the political arena.

But what does this have to deal with Germany today??? Germany is the melting pot of radical ideas and their people have a rich sense of history from ending the Roman Empire's conquest of taking over world to Bismarck ending the French's dominance on the European mainland. If one of these extreme ideas taps into their strong cultural and historical ties then it can escalate very quickly. Heck even the Protestant movement began there without any involvement of other major European countries.The only reason Germany hasn't been a radical country since 45 is the US and Russian involvement in preventing it.

I wonder how many presidential candidates take Germany`s history into their decisions.

 

[81usaf92]

I wonder how many presidential candidates take Germany`s history into their decisions.

I wonder what will happen when a German politician comes up with a slogan "Make Germany Great Again".

The Germans have rallied behind a promised greatness so many times that it's not something to try to test. The Weimar was an attempt to fully westernize a country with people who aren't your typical western people. While the Brits and French have distanced themselves from the Celtic, Saxon, and Gaulish ancestors, the Germans don't. I'm not saying that they would try to repeat hitler's third reich, but they are a hybrid of western and Eastern European people. And it would be extremely dangerous at them gaining a position of military and political power in Europe to challenge the other three weinersnitzles (gb,France,and Spain). For in that you would have what they fear in Russia but a lot closer.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Germany is where radical ideas are tested, prophicised, and implemented. Even Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky all were in agreement that Germany would be the place where communism would be shown in all of its grandness and it would be where worldwide communism would really kickoff. If Hitler had not came swooping in uninvited then it's highly likely that the German communists would've overthrew the Weimar instead. Everyone wants to focus on Hitler's ousting of the Jews, but his first targets after the failed beer hall takeover was the communists within the political arena.

But what does this have to deal with Germany today??? Germany is the melting pot of radical ideas and their people have a rich sense of history from ending the Roman Empire's conquest of taking over world to Bismarck ending the French's dominance on the European mainland. If one of these extreme ideas taps into their strong cultural and historical ties then it can escalate very quickly. Heck even the Protestant movement began there without any involvement of other major European countries.The only reason Germany hasn't been a radical country since 45 is the US and Russian involvement in preventing it.

Did you know that, before he tied into the nascent NDSAP, Hitler applied for membership in the Communist Party - and was turned down?

 

[crimsonaudio]

Did you know that, before he tied into the nascent NDSAP, Hitler applied for membership in the Communist Party - and was turned down?

I've never read this anywhere but here, is there something you can refer me to to read more about this?

TIA

 

[81usaf92]

Did you know that, before he tied into the nascent NDSAP, Hitler applied for membership in the Communist Party - and was turned down?

Ironies in history.I think you mentioned that somewhere before, and it just adds to all the weird and interesting things about hitler. The Weimar was doomed the day that the depression hit. The communists were in prime position to take control, but Hitler happened.It's just amazing that hitler took a group veterans who met at a beer hall to air their hatred of the terms that the victors laid out, and then makes a serious movement.But I guess it's not that surprising since that's basically the KKK's origin as well.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I've never read this anywhere but here, is there something you can refer me to to read more about this?

TIA

I've read so much about that era, I'll have to go back and find it. It was during his failed artist period...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I've never read this anywhere but here, is there something you can refer me to to read more about this?

TIA

It seems to come from Hans Mend, who served with Hitler in his regiment during WWI. He claimed that Hitler tried to join the party while on leave in 1917. He wrote a book, which Hitler denounced. When Hitler came to power, he arranged for Mend to be imprisoned, where he conveniently died. This is was not unusual under the NAZIs. My SIL's uncle and aunt, both disabled, were taken away without explanation and then the family was told they died of "natural causes" on the same day after a short interval. The bodies had been cremated...


Edit: Quite a number of leading NAZIs, including Goebbels, were Communists before converting to the NSDAP...

 

[Tide1986]

Thoughtful article about our use of NATO with respect to Russia:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/obama-putin-russia-nato-syria-assad/?utm_content=bufferf2862&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Today’s tensions trace back much further than the dispute over the events during Ukraine’s Euromaidan, of course. But the origin of the confrontation lies as much — or more — with the West as it does with Moscow. To Russians, U.S. foreign policy since the 1990s can only appear as a decades-long bid for global hegemony, manifested most clearly in the relentless eastward expansion of NATO. More than 20 years ago, George Kennan, the architect of America’s containment policy vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, warned that introducing NATO into onetime Warsaw Pact countries (to say nothing of former Soviet republics like the Baltic states) would provoke “a new Cold War, probably ending in a hot one, and the end of the effort to achieve a workable democracy in Russia.”

 

[Tidewater]

Bulgaria Calls Rise In Airspace Violations By Russian Aircraft A ‘Provocation’
Putin's bizarre "Tick off your friends" program. Bulgaria is a NATO ally, but the Bulgarian on the street is a Russophile. They go way back to the Bulgarian War for Independence 1877-1878 and Bulgarians have genuine positive feelings towards the Russians.
The Bulgarians denied overflight to Russian planes flying yo Syria and apparently this is Russia's response.
Weird.

 

[Bamaro]

Bulgaria Calls Rise In Airspace Violations By Russian Aircraft A ‘Provocation’
Putin's bizarre "Tick off your friends" program. Bulgaria is a NATO ally, but the Bulgarian on the street is a Russophile. They go way back to the Bulgarian War for Independence 1877-1878 and Bulgarians have genuine positive feelings towards the Russians.
The Bulgarians denied overflight to Russian planes flying yo Syria and apparently this is Russia's response.
Weird.

Has Bulgaria paid their bills?

 

[Tidewater]

Has Bulgaria paid their bills?

Yeah, that whole thing is troubling. Trump implied that the US bills NATO members for protecting them. (Whether they should pay the USA for protecting them is another question). It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how NATO works. At the Wales Summit in 2014, the heads of state endorsed a goal of 2% of GDP for defense. A few meet that standard. Most do not.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Yeah, that whole thing is troubling. Trump implied that the US bills NATO members for protecting them. (Whether they should pay the USA for protecting them is another question). It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how NATO works. At the Wales Summit in 2014, the heads of state endorsed a goal of 2% of GDP for defense. A few meet that standard. Most do not.

When you see the entire world in the prism of "what kind of deal am I getting," then it's a pretty normal result...