Could Germany justify rearming?

In light of recent events, could Germany justify rearming itself? They are the 4th largest economy in the world (dwarfed by US and China of course)and they are the predominant power in the EU, so just throwing this out there, not trying to start a conspiracy theory or anything either but it's something I've been wondering. I know there are treaties out there but what if they could be nullified?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

WintaTheAngle · 41-45, M

It’s perfectly justifiable. Germany has been sleep walking for too long assuming that if it has few arms it will never be involved in another destructive conflict again.

This is a dreamworld. With best of intentions nobody can guarantee that.

They’re a nato partner, we need all nations of the treaty to spend a minimum 2% of their national budget on military resources or the treaty will have no teeth.

spjennifer · 61-69, T

@WintaTheAngle All members of NATO would have to agree to nullify any restrictions on Germany's military too though for it to grow its military beyond what the Treaties permit.

WintaTheAngle · 41-45, M

@spjennifer We are already passed that stage. It has been a requirement of the North Atlantic Treat since the 90s that member states spend 2% of their national budget on military defence spending.

spjennifer · 61-69, T

@WintaTheAngle Yes, I am aware of that but that doesn't supersede the restrictions Germany has:

Even now Germany remains bound by military constraints — under the Treaty for the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which returned the country's sovereignty in 1991, German armed forces are limited to 370,000 personnel, of whom no more than 345,000 are allowed to be in the army and air force.

Germany is also not permitted to possess nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Their new Chancellor, Olaf Scholz also declared last week that he planned to significantly increase military spending over the next 10 years by €100B and to spend the 2% GDP on Defense too.

WintaTheAngle · 41-45, M

@spjennifer You’re not going to see anyone in Europe complaining. We need to very country to pull its weight when confronting a much larger aggressor.

spjennifer · 61-69, T

@WintaTheAngle A "much larger aggressor" that Europe gets 45% of its petrol and natural gas from and probably closer to 60% in Germany... 3 of the primary signatories of NATO, the US, UK and Canada are not in Europe and would probably object to expansion by Germany too.

WintaTheAngle · 41-45, M

@spjennifer What relevance is that to the response I gave you?

You haven’t being paying attention. For decades the US has been frustrated with NATO members not committing to spend 2% on military spending and the US therefore having to bare the brunt of NATO operations. That comes from the US. So they aren’t going to suddenly object.

Can you go away and read up on this because the conversation isn’t going to go anywhere while you keep skirting passed the NATO requirement of this 2.% spending which some members including Germany are not meeting.

spjennifer · 61-69, T

@WintaTheAngle You seem to be totally focused on only the 2% GDP spending on NATO that members are supposed to pay and only that and you seem very upset by it. I don't disagree that most of the members are not meeting that requirement but what does that have to do with Germany increasing the size of its military? Yes, the US has borne the brunt of the cost, there are you satisfied now? Are you going to go away now? FYI, Germany hasn't been "sleepwalking" they have been restricted as a result of WW2 on the size of their military and what weapons they can actually have, how about you go away and read a little bit...

DiStefano · 46-50, M

@spjennifer The restrictions have been lifted ever more since 1955, because Germany is not and has not always been the enemy of the US. It became an important junoir ally within NATO. Circumstances change, friends have changed, enemies have changed. The UK has been in more wars with the US than Germany, yet they became friends. And the enmity between France and the UK (and before that England) lasted even many hundred years. And because Germany is part of NATO, Germany has much to do with Trumps complain that members are not meeting that 2% requirement. Germany as a NATO state could have increased their military size in the last decades and even acquired nuclear weapons, but they choose not to.

spjennifer · 61-69, T

@DiStefano Yes, but the restrictions on them having chemical, biological or nuclear weapons remain in place and they should. There are many other members of NATO that don't meet the spending requirements too and I don't really care what tRump thought, of course the US is going to spend more, they have a much larger GDP, if they hate it so much, they should apply to have their proportion reduced. I think it might make more sense to have an EU or NATO Force that all the Countries participate in...

walabby · M

@spjennifer The USA may well have been spending a disproportionate amount of money on NATO, but it also had a disproportionate amount of influence over NATO. That influence has shrunk over the last five years...