Disaster German Military is not deployable to defend the Country

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...currently-unavailable/?utm_term=.1bef50c49d1c

Three years ago, Germany's military made headlines when it used broomsticks instead of machine guns during a NATO exercise because of a shortage of equipment. The lack of real weapons in the European Union’s most populous nation was seen as symptomatic of how underfunded its military has long been.

One Russian annexation later, if anything, the state of affairs has only gotten worse, according to the parliamentary commissioner for the country’s armed forces.

He has now reached the conclusion that the German military is virtually “not deployable for collective defense.” Independent commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels also indicated in an interview that Germany was unprepared for the possibility of a larger conflict even though smaller operations abroad may still be possible.
 
Welp, if any of the neighboring countries were planning to run off with the entire country's beer and pretzel supplies I'd say now's a pretty good time to do it!
 
The German army is not meant to engage in a larger conflict, in the 2000s they did not participate in the Afghanistan or Iraq campaign until these countries have already been occupied, and in Afghanistan the German army mostly did police work and keeping up the peace. After the Second World War, Germany refuses to get into an attack war, and with being at peace with nine neighbouring countries for over 70 years, and no Iron Curtain next to the border there is no need to have that much of a large army.

Basically the article is one of the many attempts in the past to push Germany to engage more in war conflicts, because that's what the allied nations want: for every German soldier deployed in a crisis region you do not need to put an US soldier there, and it's much easier for the war lobbyists at home in America to explain why so many German soldiers die rather than why so many US soldiers come back in a coffin.

A collective defense? When would that be needed? So Germany needs to pay billions of extra tax money to keep a top-modern and always-ready army in case of what? For the Russians marching in? When is that going to happen? The ISIS propaganda claimed they would concquer Istanbul within six weeks and from there Europe until Paris and Berlin within six months, which was a claim they made two years ago. See how that worked.

The German Army does help the people when they are needed, for example in the past decades they went out and helped people when the Elbe river flooded towns, villages and cities by carrying sandbags and doing everything for free a company would have charged those communities for.
 
Fighting terrorists in your own country with a large army, lots of tanks and fighting jets and submarines is propably not the best way to spend your taxes when said country is Germany.

I disagree. It's actually pretty fucking sad for a country that used to be able to march all over Eastern and Western Europe and even invade Russia to have become a completely pathetic pack of pussies.
 
It's actually pretty fucking sad for a country that used to be able to march all over Eastern and Western Europe and even invade Russia to have become a completely pathetic pack of pussies.
Well, the winners of WW2 had an agenda to turn Germany into a peaceful nation, so it's basically your fault.
 
Fighting terrorists in your own country with a large army, lots of tanks and fighting jets and submarines is propably not the best way to spend your taxes when said country is Germany.
You don't need jets and submarines to have an army capable of defending your country, that's a bullshit argument. Especially when troops are using fucking broomsticks instead of rifles.
 
Forgetting about the fact the German army did a good job in keeping up the peace in countries they were sent after an occupation or during peace missions, such as Kosovo (Prizren region) and Northern Afghanistan. These countries who now want Germany to engage in larger campaigns like Iraq were the ones who did not wish to have (Western) Germany having a large military again.

Germany however has a large arms industry and provides both sides of a conflict (such as the Afrin operation between Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces) with firearms and or tanks (most notably the Leopard 2 for the Turkish army).
 
Well, the winners of WW2 had an agenda to turn Germany into a peaceful nation, so it's basically your fault.

I didn't do it! And they seriously had it coming, too.

It's just a regrettable situation.
 
Does Germany have an equivalent of the National Guard or something?

I mean the same rule applies to the US military as well. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines cannot be deployed on US soil under any circumstance. That's why we have the national guard to do such a thing instead.
 
(most notably the Leopard 2 for the Turkish army).
Those are doing a good job in Syria.

1518109839246.jpg
1514580530396.jpg
1517687830981.png
1517693736781.jpg
 
It is a problem endemic to nearly all the NATO countries since the fall of the wall. Only US, UK, Greece, Estonia, and Poland meet the 2% GDP goal for military expenditure.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo