6 ms·

But on the other hand German investors can choose where to put their money based on what they think.

willcipriano 3y ago
Yup and the US can pull its military bases out of Germany as well as remove troops from the European theater more generally and let them defend themselves.
- kelipso 3y ago
  The troops are there to give the US an advantage in Europe not to defend Germany lol.
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    Well Germany must have been mistaken then to voice against Trump’s plan to withdraw some troop in 2020. https://www.brecorder.com/news/1002286/trump-plan-to-slash-us-troops-sparks-concern-in-germany https://www.brecorder.com/news/1002286/trump-plan-to-slash-u...
- jleyank 3y ago
  I thought they basically did out of one or two with a (large) hospital and airbase…. The troops went elsewhere and the equipment came home. Googling says 35k troops in Germany, but doesn’t break down by service arm. Edit: without the nato airbases it’s a long flight trying to redeploy from N America to, say, the Middle East. Having client states partway keeps troops secure in transit and provides a place to organize/redeploy.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Bring them home, they don't like our weapons. Edit: US troops have no business in the ME. The only business they have in Europe is defending Europeans and as far as the Germans are concerned they feel the way we engage in warfare is inappropriate.
    - jleyank 3y ago
      It seems various us governments have not shared this opinion in the past.
    - Arnt 3y ago
      Those bases are there now mostly to be there in the future. The US wants a large military airport, hospital, warehouses and supporting infrastructure at a location where it can be trusted to remain there for twenty years or more, because building such things takes time. There aren't a lot of suitable locations within, say, three hours of flying time from the present facilities. So they're going to stay.
      - VK538FY 3y ago
        Really? I was under the impression that Poland wanted the US to establish permanent bases on its territory and that they would make most of the American presence in Germany superfluous. (The Russians do not like this at all and the outcome of the current conflict may affect the PL-US cooperation. But that's not really the point here.) Maybe someone can correct me but I understood that the base in Ramstein is the only American base in Germany that is hard to replace because of a favourable position to communicate with satellites and provide nearly instantaneous communication between multiple theatres. Hard for me to say if 1'000 km east in Poland is less favourable.
        VK538FY 3y ago
        It's also an open secret at this point that American atomic gravity bombs are stored in bases in Italy, Belgium, UK and Germany. The current Polish government doesn't seem to be opposed to doing the same in Poland. Plans to maintain the American nuclear umbrella may still involve Germany regardless of Poland's decisions.
        Arnt 3y ago
        Sure they want a base, but how much would you bet that they wouldn't try to use the base for political purposes once the Americans have invested too much to walk away? The planners in the Pentagon want their bases for American purposes and only American purposes.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  That would be an 8B USD savings for the USA https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/germany-spent-almost-billion-euros-us-troops-past-10-years#:~:text=35.000%20US%20troops%20are%20currently%20stationed%20in%20Germany&text=Based%20on%20a%20budget%20paper,paid%20by%20Germany%20last%20year https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/germany....
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    That's it? That's nothing. Totally worth weakening your alliance and power projection for that.
- Detrytus 3y ago
  I thought US bases are there to keep Germans in check, not to defend them...
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    The bases are in West Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_ins... Are you saying they were trying to keep the West Germans in check after WW2? Nothing else going on in the area at the time (and arguably still), towards the east? Topkek
    - Detrytus 3y ago
      Well, to be honest, both World Wars were Germany's fault, so it kind of made sense keeping them in check and making sure they won't try for the third time. Of course Soviet Union then quickly overshadowed them as a threat. Right now that NATO expanded to the East, Germany are not frontier country anymore, so the only way American troops make sense there is again, as occupying army.
      - manuel_w 3y ago
        I checked the wikipedia article on World War I [1] and fail to see how it can be attributed to Germany individually. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I > The first decade of the 20th century saw increasing diplomatic tension between the European great powers. This reached a breaking point on 28 June 1914, when a Bosnian Serb named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria-Hungary held Serbia responsible, and declared war on 28 July. Russia came to Serbia's defence, and by 4 August, defensive alliances had drawn in Germany, France, and Britain, with the Ottoman Empire joining the war in November.
        VK538FY 3y ago
        And the madness of WWII was in no small way related to the oddly inequitable treaty of Versailles formulated to reflect French and British demands.

Yup and the US can pull its military bases out of Germany as well as remove troops from the European theater more generally and let them defend themselves.

kelipso 3y ago
The troops are there to give the US an advantage in Europe not to defend Germany lol.
- signatoremo 3y ago
  Well Germany must have been mistaken then to voice against Trump’s plan to withdraw some troop in 2020. https://www.brecorder.com/news/1002286/trump-plan-to-slash-us-troops-sparks-concern-in-germany https://www.brecorder.com/news/1002286/trump-plan-to-slash-u...
jleyank 3y ago
I thought they basically did out of one or two with a (large) hospital and airbase…. The troops went elsewhere and the equipment came home. Googling says 35k troops in Germany, but doesn’t break down by service arm. Edit: without the nato airbases it’s a long flight trying to redeploy from N America to, say, the Middle East. Having client states partway keeps troops secure in transit and provides a place to organize/redeploy.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Bring them home, they don't like our weapons. Edit: US troops have no business in the ME. The only business they have in Europe is defending Europeans and as far as the Germans are concerned they feel the way we engage in warfare is inappropriate.
  - jleyank 3y ago
    It seems various us governments have not shared this opinion in the past.
  - Arnt 3y ago
    Those bases are there now mostly to be there in the future. The US wants a large military airport, hospital, warehouses and supporting infrastructure at a location where it can be trusted to remain there for twenty years or more, because building such things takes time. There aren't a lot of suitable locations within, say, three hours of flying time from the present facilities. So they're going to stay.
    - VK538FY 3y ago
      Really? I was under the impression that Poland wanted the US to establish permanent bases on its territory and that they would make most of the American presence in Germany superfluous. (The Russians do not like this at all and the outcome of the current conflict may affect the PL-US cooperation. But that's not really the point here.) Maybe someone can correct me but I understood that the base in Ramstein is the only American base in Germany that is hard to replace because of a favourable position to communicate with satellites and provide nearly instantaneous communication between multiple theatres. Hard for me to say if 1'000 km east in Poland is less favourable.
      - VK538FY 3y ago
        It's also an open secret at this point that American atomic gravity bombs are stored in bases in Italy, Belgium, UK and Germany. The current Polish government doesn't seem to be opposed to doing the same in Poland. Plans to maintain the American nuclear umbrella may still involve Germany regardless of Poland's decisions.
      - Arnt 3y ago
        Sure they want a base, but how much would you bet that they wouldn't try to use the base for political purposes once the Americans have invested too much to walk away? The planners in the Pentagon want their bases for American purposes and only American purposes.
rs999gti 3y ago
That would be an 8B USD savings for the USA https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/germany-spent-almost-billion-euros-us-troops-past-10-years#:~:text=35.000%20US%20troops%20are%20currently%20stationed%20in%20Germany&text=Based%20on%20a%20budget%20paper,paid%20by%20Germany%20last%20year https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/germany....
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  That's it? That's nothing. Totally worth weakening your alliance and power projection for that.
Detrytus 3y ago
I thought US bases are there to keep Germans in check, not to defend them...
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  The bases are in West Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_ins... Are you saying they were trying to keep the West Germans in check after WW2? Nothing else going on in the area at the time (and arguably still), towards the east? Topkek
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    Well, to be honest, both World Wars were Germany's fault, so it kind of made sense keeping them in check and making sure they won't try for the third time. Of course Soviet Union then quickly overshadowed them as a threat. Right now that NATO expanded to the East, Germany are not frontier country anymore, so the only way American troops make sense there is again, as occupying army.
    - manuel_w 3y ago
      I checked the wikipedia article on World War I [1] and fail to see how it can be attributed to Germany individually. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I > The first decade of the 20th century saw increasing diplomatic tension between the European great powers. This reached a breaking point on 28 June 1914, when a Bosnian Serb named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria-Hungary held Serbia responsible, and declared war on 28 July. Russia came to Serbia's defence, and by 4 August, defensive alliances had drawn in Germany, France, and Britain, with the Ottoman Empire joining the war in November.
      - VK538FY 3y ago
        And the madness of WWII was in no small way related to the oddly inequitable treaty of Versailles formulated to reflect French and British demands.