Opinionated piece by Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham, UK.
… the EU’s largest and Nato’s second-largest economy, Germany is now also aiming to turn its Bundeswehr (the German army, navy and air force) into the “strongest conventional army in Europe”. Its most senior military officer and chief of defence, Carsten Breuer, has published plans for a rapid and wide-ranging expansion of defence capabilities.
Germany is finally beginning to pull its weight in European defence and security policy. This is absolutely critical to the credibility of the EU in the face of the threat from Russia. Berlin has the financial muscle and the technological and industrial potential to make Europe more of a peer to the US when it comes to defence spending and burden sharing. This will be important to salvage what remains of Nato in light of a highly probable American down-scaling – if not complete abandonment – of its past security commitments to the alliance.
…
No nukes - no guarantees.
France has Nukes
So France, and only France has a believable deterrence. Or do you really think a front national President would risk Paris for a small tactical nuke on Nato troupes in Poland? France doesn’t have tactical nukes, only the city destroying strategic ones, they can’t answer without escalating.
Disappointing, I did not want to see our Prussian militarism rise up again. As long as the Russians continue to threaten Europe and politically influence the USA, we have no choice but to rearm.
What if I were to tell you all that you can rearm and simply be pragmatic, not weird about it?
With our (German) military history, I hope so and let the cool heads prevail.
Well, we have historians who think it necessary to introduce the old traditions again. One of them: a historian responsible for shaping government policy concerning the military:
But we are progressive too, feminists fantasising about protecting their families with M16s in street fights with Russians are a thing as well.
So, don’t get your hopes up
Well, we have historians who think it necessary to introduce the old traditions again.
As far as I can tell, this historian says in the article that a soldier is more than an extension of democracy but also needs to be able to actually fight and hence not only needs ‘role models’ for ehtos/attitude but also for acquiring military skills.
He criticises that we (Germany) try to hide the bitter reality of the military behind a purely bureaucratic façade, while the actual soldiers risking their lives deserve a more honest and open treatment.
No. It might seem that way superficially, but that’s not the case. It’s such a common place that soldiers have to acquire military skills, it’s laughable to pretend that the German state or bureaucracy sort of forgot about that. He explicitly criticises the German military’s directive that the Wehrmacht can’t serve as a traditional role model for the Bundeswehr, and he only implicitly, at least in this publication, wants to see the military traditions of Wehrmacht and Prussia, reinstated. The reasons why the Wehrmacht should never be a fucking role model for the Bundeswehr has been discussed at length and brought to an end (it seemed) in the 90s. It’s a fucking disgrace that all this reactive bullshit is becoming fashionable again. It’s only possible because they pretend that there’s never been a broad public and scientific discussion about these matters in Germany. Where in fact these were the reason why there is a changed attitude towards military traditions. And it took till 2018 for German politics to acknowledge that. And now we’re back to square one, fuck.
It’s such a common place that soldiers have to acquire military skills, it’s laughable to pretend that the German state or bureaucracy sort of forgot about that.
That is not the point he’s making. He says that while we (as in the general public) like to make the Bundeswehr appear as a “clean” entirely “bureaucratic” object with a large focus on questions of ethos/attitude, we closed our eyes to the inevitable military nature of the Bundeswehr. This is understandable, given our history, but the soldiers who actually risk their lives don’t only need role models in terms of ethos/attitude, but also in terms of skills. Maybe I overlooked it, but I can’t see where he “explicitly criticises the German military’s directive that the Wehrmacht can’t serve as a traditional role model for the Bundeswehr” and especially not where he “wants to see the military traditions of Wehrmacht and Prussia, reinstated”
The reasons why the Wehrmacht should never be a fucking role model for the Bundeswehr has been discussed at length and brought to an end (it seemed) in the 90s.
That’s why I’d like to see where he makes that point. We then can get angry all we want, but first I’d like to see what precisely to get angry at.
Note I found this article after I got that weird feeling about Neitzel in the Zeit article.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/19/wehr-j19.html
I don’t think this is too alarmist. It is no coincidence that Germany’s role in WWI also gets downplayed by these types, eg Münkler. Again, these reactionary debates create the illusion that historians of the 20th century somehow got it wrong or that there never was any debate about these topics. As if something like the Fischer controversy never happened. It’s scary.
In the previous article, this is what I based my suspicions on:
Musste die junge Bundesrepublik etwa noch auf die alten Wehrmachtseliten zurückgreifen, um eine Armee im Dienst der Freiheit aufzubauen, wolle man nach der Jahrtausendwende von dieser Kontinuität meist nichts mehr wissen, sagt Neitzel. Ein Ausdruck dessen sei etwa der Traditionserlass der Bundeswehr von 2018. Da heißt es: “Für die Streikkräfte eines demokratischen Rechtsstaates ist die Wehrmacht als Institution nicht traditionswürdig.” Und: “Grundlagen sowie Maßstab für das Traditionsverständnis der Bundeswehr und für ihre Traditionspflege sind (…) vor allem die Werte und Normen des Grundgesetzes.” Frühere Fassungen waren bei allen Distanzierungen von Nationalismus und Militarismus traditionsoffener, etwa der Erlass von 1965: “Die deutsche Wehrgeschichte umfasst in Frieden und Krieg zahllose soldatische Leistungen und menschliche Bewährungen, die überliefert zu werden verdienen.” Oder der Text von 1982: "Nicht jede Einzelheit militärischen Brauchtums, das sich aus früheren Zeiten herleitet, muss demokratisch legitimiert sein.”