Closing Allied bases in Germany, sleep-walking to a nuclear-armed German superpower?

This man needs to spread himself about more.

There must be hundreds of Scottish towns and villages in need of an idiot.

I just love the uniform in his videos. Idi Amin would be jealous as fcuk.
 
Capt Frogman said:
Just a couple of questions if I may, Pete. Can I call you Pete?
Click to expand...
Sure.

Capt Frogman said:
Why would Germany want to drop a nuclear bomb on London/UK? What would they hope to achieve?
Click to expand...
What did Germany hope to achieve by bombing London during the Blitz in WW2? A military victory.

The point is, with nukes, Germany could beat us; without nukes, they've no chance.

Capt Frogman said:
Why do we need to keep troops in Germany (at great expense when money is sort), when the Cold War ended 20 years ago and WW2 ended 70 years ago, and nothing sinister has happened since?
Click to expand...
You don't deploy military forces to defend against what has happened, but to defend against what could happen.

We use our troops in Germany in co-operation with German NATO-loyalists, to enforce Germany's current non-nuclear constitution; it's a non-nuclear constitution because we, the Allies who beat Germany in WW2, insisted on that.

On the question of "at great expense". Well it should not have to be all that expensive. Please re-read this -

Peter Dow said:
I expect that one of the main reasons the UK wants to withdraw from our German bases is cost. Apparently, since reunification we've had to pay rent for our bases, as have the Americans. So I was told.

Well if it is an unfair rent (and it sounds like it if it is too expensive to afford) maybe Germany are putting the rent up so much because they are trying to evict us?

Anyway, we should be getting our bases rent free since the Allies, well the USA to be specific, gave Germany a huge amount of money via the Marshall fund for German reconstruction.

The Germans owe Britain plenty if we need to offset the rent for our bases in Germany because of the cost in lives and treasure Germany cost Britain by their aggression in Europe which forced us to fight them in 2 world wars.

The non-German NATO countries need to insist on no rent, token rent or, at the most generous, affordable rents.
Click to expand...

Capt Frogman said:
Why would the fact that having British troops in Germany, prevent them from arming themselves with nuclear weapons? Why wait until the British troops leave?
Click to expand...
Our forces, in cooperation with NATO loyalist German forces would arrest any German persons engaged in political, engineering or military activity with a view to Germany gaining nuclear-weapons.

Specifically non-German NATO troops would be used in case of attempts to resist the appropriate arrests by disloyal German units if any emerged.

Capt Frogman said:
Why does NATO need to get involved?
Click to expand...
It is the Western security organisation which includes all the key players, Germany, the UK, other European countries, the North Americans. It's the one organisation with a military command which can over-rule the German military inside Germany with a minimum of fuss.

Capt Frogman said:
You do realise that there will still be US military bases in Germany?
Click to expand...
Yes but we shouldn't hang the entire work-load of European security on the Americans. They've got plenty of other concerns. We need to pull our own weight, help them out. With the French abandoning their bases inside Germany it's only really us Britons there in significant numbers now, apart from the Americans.

Capt Frogman said:
The US is also closing bases
Click to expand...
Well the US ought to keep a big enough in military presence to fulfill its part in the wider NATO constitutional over-watch role enforcing Germany's non-nuclear-weapons-power status.

Capt Frogman said:
- should the US expect to be bombed by Germany as well?
Click to expand...
Germany has been at war with the US and could be again I suppose. One never knows how matters will develop into the far future.

One ought to prepare contingency plans for the unexpected scenarios as well as the expected scenarios. Ignoring possible dangers, not planning ahead, is one sure way to invite trouble.
 
Last edited:
Is there not more pressing matters for both the UK and the US dealing with foriegn policy other than an outdated and ludicrous assumption that somehow remnants of third reich idoelogy and war mongering have infiltrated current German government/military? I'd say there are far more things to worry about than what you have posted on Germany.

For the rest of you, I don't think some of you guys were here when I went round and round with this guy on "winning in Afghanistan". For a good laugh, look at his previous posts on that subject. Clearly and armchair "expert" on COIN and war winning. Damn, if only we'd had this infinite wisdom 12 years ago!

Can anyone say Aspergers syndrome!?
 
brinktk said:
For the rest of you, I don't think some of you guys were here when I went round and round with this guy on "winning in Afghanistan". For a good laugh, look at his previous posts on that subject. Clearly and armchair "expert" on COIN and war winning. Damn, if only we'd had this infinite wisdom 12 years ago!

Can anyone say Aspergers syndrome!?
Click to expand...

I recall the Afghanistan "discussion". :lol:

I bow down to his superior knowledge, despite the fact he's never been to Afghanistan, served in the military or even led a troop of guys in a war zone!

Re aspergers syndrome. That's a bit harsh on people with aspergers! ;)
 
Capt Frogman said:
I recall the Afghanistan "discussion". :lol:

I bow down to his superior knowledge, despite the fact he's never been to Afghanistan, served in the military or even led a troop of guys in a war zone!

Re aspergers syndrome. That's a bit harsh on people with aspergers! ;)
Click to expand...

I think narcissistic is a better description :)
 
Peter Dow said:
What did Germany hope to achieve by bombing London during the Blitz in WW2? A military victory.

The point is, with nukes, Germany could beat us; without nukes, they've no chance.
Click to expand...

We were at war in WW2. I'm not sure if you're aware, but we aren't at war with Germany now and haven't been for 70 years.

We also have nukes? We also have close allies with nukes.

Peter Dow said:
You don't deploy military forces to defend against what has happened, but to defend against what could happen.

We use our troops in Germany in co-operation with German NATO-loyalists, to enforce Germany's current non-nuclear constitution; it's a non-nuclear constitution because we, the Allies who beat Germany in WW2, insisted on that.

On the question of "at great expense". Well it should not have to be all that expensive.
Click to expand...

We deploy troops against what could happen? You'd better tell the MOD that then, so that we can deploy troops in Iran, North Korea, Somilia and Yemen then!

We aren't based in Germany to enforce any non-nuclear constitution. I'd suggest you actually visit Germany instead of making up such odd assumptions. Can I also ask that you read up on the origins of the BAOR?

There is other expenditure such as getting supplies, equipment and troops over there etc. An expense we don't need as it serves no military purpose. Germany grants NATO forces on its territory the use of military installations and training areas free of charge (airfields, barracks, schools, hospitals, and logistics facilities.) Germany also pays vast sums of money to have foreign troops stationed in their country.

Peter Dow said:
Our forces, in cooperation with NATO loyalist German forces would arrest any German persons engaged in political, engineering or military activity with a view to Germany gaining nuclear-weapons.

Specifically non-German NATO troops would be used in case of attempts to resist the appropriate arrests by disloyal German units if any emerged.
Click to expand...

You'd better put that tinfoil hat on if that's the case!

What proof do you actually have that they want nuclear weapons, especially as you admit to never going to Germany?

"NATO loyalist German forces"? You've lost it mate. You need professional help.

Peter Dow said:
It is the Western security organisation which includes all the key players, Germany, the UK, other European countries, the North Americans. It's the one organisation with a military command which can over-rule the German military inside Germany with a minimum of fuss.
Click to expand...

I know who/what NATO is, as unlike you, I served in the military. My 22 years of experience tells me that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Peter Dow said:
Yes but we shouldn't hang the entire work-load of European security on the Americans. They've got plenty of other concerns. We need to pull our own weight, help them out. With the French abandoning their bases inside Germany it's only really us Britons there in significant numbers now, apart from the Americans.
Click to expand...

European security? We aren't in Germany to prevent them from procuring nuclear weapons. The sooner you understand that the better.

Canada is expanding its base in Germany.

Peter Dow said:
Well the US ought to keep a big enough in military presence to fulfill its part in the wider NATO constitutional over-watch role enforcing Germany's non-nuclear-weapons-power status.
Click to expand...

No ones enforcing any "non nuclear weapons power status". There's no such thing. You've just imagined it.

Peter Dow said:
Germany has been at war with the US and could be again I suppose. One never knows how matters will develop into the far future.

One ought to prepare contingency plans for the unexpected scenarios as well as the expected scenarios. Ignoring possible dangers, not planning ahead, is one sure way to invite trouble.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were at war during WW2 which was 70 years ago.

There will no unexpected scenarios or possible dangers involving German nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded.
 
Closing Allied bases in Germany, sleep-walking to a nuclear-armed German superp

Oy, less of the fart!.
You are far more likely to need those, if your BMI starts with a 3!.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top