4 ms·
"subservient" may be a bit too harsh a term. In history it was far more profitable to ally with the US than with any other superpower. That goes double because
by bayesianhorse 11y ago
"subservient" may be a bit too harsh a term. In history it was far more profitable to ally with the US than with any other superpower. That goes double because especially in the decades just after WWII nobody would trust Germany with enough weapons to defend itself, and so there really were only two choices: Ally with the US, or be swallowed by the Warsaw pact. They did have the invasion plans, by the way.
- tempodox 11y agoThe U.S. wouldn't have let any country fall prey to the communists, so keeping Germany with “the west” was very much in their own interest. Hell, they used planes for years to keep even half a city (west Berlin) from falling to the communists. Your arguments don't convince me.
- saiya-jin 11y ago1968, Czechoslovakia. True, armed conflict would utterly devastate my homeland, but your statement is only partially true. And some form of devastation happened anyway, in mind of people living there. Results will be felt for generations.