Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cass | Hacker News Reader

There's nothing surprising about the German tolerance of the US military bases, considering that they do nothing whatsoever to interfere with our lives or inconvenience us in any way, but do provide quite a lot of jobs. These are mostly medical or training facilities, many of them operated jointly by American and German forces, not some occupying force that's intent on overrunning our government or controlling the citizenry.

As far as public opinion goes, this is a complete non-issue, and I strongly suspect that if public opinion turned so far as to make it an issue, the US would withdraw their troops before entering into a war with a powerful western nation that would almost inevitably turn into another world war. This is really not what I'd call an occupation.

View on HN

It is also worth pointing out that the occupation of Germany ended in 1955.

The US military has a policy of being forward deployed around the globe, so it negotiates agreements with may countries around the world to station troops in strategic locations.

The military bases are there as a result of legal agreements and treaties, not because they would forcibly resist any attempts to expel them, and there is no sentiment in the US whatsoever to change that policy and begin fighting to establish bases in friendly countries.

For a parallel, look to Uzbekistan where the US operated an airbase after 9/11. In 2005, there was a massacre by Uzbek government forces, and the US said there ought to be an international investigation. Uzbekistan replied by rescinding the agreement for use of the airbase, and the US left. No shots were fired.

Well … to be honest I consider 1990 the year in which occupation ended and Germany got its full sovereignty back (with the 2+4 talks and reunification).

Technically that doesn’t matter at all because all through the cold war West-German and US interests were very tightly aligned (and when interests diverged a bit the US did give West-Germany enough freedom, though they hardly ever diverged much).

I mean, West-Berlin was most certainly occupied until 1990. It’s just that that was an occupation hardly anyone had a problem with.

The US has bases in countries all over the world as part of military agreements. From 1955, W. Germany has them as a NATO member vs. the Warsaw Pact countries. They're not occupations unless the armies establish control over the countries.

The US still has some of its largest overseas bases in Germany; see http://militarybases.com/overseas/germany/

Ahh, so it's forward deployment, not some modern version of colonialism. It should be noted that US bases aren't always loved or even well tolerated. See Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan et al.

The US doesn't have any military bases in Iraq.

The Japanese could certainly ask us to leave, and we would. But they don't, because except for a vocal minority they do want us there.

And Afghanistan is a war zone. I wouldn't consider that anything but an occupation. Which, I might add, they brought on themselves, so I don't have much sympathy.

Yes indeed, legally declining to extradite someone totally justifies being invaded and occupied.

In this case it was. Absolutely. One of the duties of a government is to control what goes on in its territory. Legally we had an iron-clad casus belli.

Legally, the UN charter and thus US law makes it clear invading another country can be done in self-defense or by approval of the security council. Neither of those conditions were met. Legally, you're talking nonsense. The U.S. government knew this. They labelled Taliban troops terrorist-supporters rather than soldiers so that they could ignore the law. Invading a country and bombing big lumps of it into oblivion and then occupying it for a decade because you fear a handful of non-state actors who might or might not be inside it; both illegal and fucking ridiculous, and far more damaging to the US than a grown-up response would have been.

>Legally, the UN charter and thus US law makes it clear invading another country can be done in self-defense or by approval of the security council. Neither of those conditions were met.

Nonsense. That's as clear a case of self defense as you're going to find.

The Taliban, assuming they weren't in league with al-Qaeda, violated Niven's Law 1b, "Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man."

I've lived in Heidelberg for a while (with Germans) and I don't think the Americans there were really well seen. The MP cars in the streets (or the US imported cars in general), flying italian bottled water to US then back to Germany to avoid paying taxes, the fact that many American people born on German territory (children of military families) don't even bother to learn german, the gated communities etc. Plus the fact that the Iraq and Afganistan operation where headquartered there, the resentment seemed quite high.

(I just googled it and I see it's deactivated on april 1st 2013 actually)

> It is also worth pointing out that the occupation of Germany ended in 1955.

Interestingly, though, Germany never signed a peace treaty with the US. It only signed a "cease-fire" with the US to end the war. :)

Luckily, the US hasn't declared war since Vietnam anyway.

The US hasn't declared war since the Second World War. Neither Vietnam nor Korea was declared as it is described in the US Constitution (that Congress shall declare war).

Weren't both Vietnam and Korea wars the US was simply involved in, instead of them declaring war against someone / a nation / a government? Similarly, Iraq and Afghanistan, iirc the US merely cooperated with the UN to er. Do something with those countries.

For Iraq as far as I remember the UN was opposed to any intervention. They went on their own.

No military bases in Iraq.. I'd better get with the times, good point. Got the hell out of that mess - the same will be said of Afghanistan shortly.

Isn't the US already (slowly) withdrawing/reducing the stationed troops?

Besides, germany wouldn't really have a chance. The few nuclear rockets we control would probably not be ready in time. The USA could just bomb germany down, like it was planned in case of a war with the UDSSR.

Except for the tiny fact that you attack Germany, you attack EU. And that's pretty much a world war right there. Nobody wants another world war, don't be silly.

M.A.D. still exists by the way. It's still why all major nations are at peace and why the EU gave so much flak to the US a few years ago when Bush wanted to install a nuclear shield. He later had to back down or serious stuff would've happened. (afaik)

Also, according to wikipedia, Europe has 150 to 240 nuclear warheads. Plenty enough to destroy all US major cities.

Nobody wants another world war, don't be silly.

But... but... what about childish power fantasies and world conquest?

That's how the prequells started.

Oh no! The EU! A political body which requires unanimity to make any decision! We tremble in fear...

In all seriousness though, the EU does not currently extend to defense; it is currently only a political and economic union. France and Germany have proposed extending the EU to include common defense, but as of today it had not yet been ratified by either the European Council or the member states. See, e.g., the Treaty of Lisbon. (Note that the Treaty of Lisbon technically removes the unanimity requirement in place of a "double majority" threshold (meaning >55% of vote from >65% of countries) beginning in 2014.)

And of course, war has no impact on politics and tightly interwoven economies...

good news, because there has been military help treaties between neighboring countries a long time before EU was really standing up.

Fun factoid: France lets Switzerland use part of its territory to defend Geneva. And also let it fly its plane over FR territory because CH is so small that it's not practical for pilots training.

Germany itself isn't the only reason I doubt the US would attack Germany. If the US attacked Germany, I'm sure most of Europe would side with Germany at this point. So it would be akin to attacking all of Europe. Not something that's worth a single NSA leak, I'm sure.

Why is everyone in this discussion assuming that the US would be attacking Germany if not for the awesome deterrent power of the EU? Seriously?

Sounds crazy but the US has plans to IN-f*cking-VADE Germany's neighbour, the Netherlands if they were ever to do a crazy thing, like arrest US soldiers for war crimes and bring them to the International Tribunal.

..."The Hague Invasion Act,[3][4] since such freeing of US citizens by force might only be possible through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts and the seat of the Dutch government."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pro...

Countries have all kinds of crazy plans in place in case crazy things happen.

e.g. The UK had plans involving "shooting guards at American nuclear weapon stores in England if they proved uncooperative"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-eve...

Correct. But the International Tribunal isn't exactly 'a crazy thing*. Would it be 'crazy' to uphold (Coalition) troops to the same standard as 'the bad guys'?

Personally, I think it is a great thing (I'd ship a certain former Prime Minister off to it) - but I'm not American.

What in my post led you to believe I think there's even a remote chance of that happening?

Motive and deterrence are orthogonal.

Nobody said anything about motive because there is no realistic motive. These 'assumptions' you're seeing are wholly in your own head.

There is, however, real deterrence, and it's interesting to explore its shape.

Of course not worth it. Think i just minded the "powerful".

Slowly? They have been closing US military facilities in Germany for decades.

So it is slowly. If it would be fast, all of them would be closed by now.

If the US attacked Germany, the rest of Europe would instantly go to war with the US. Russia would likely attack the US as well (as good a time as any) and who knows what China might do. The US spends the most on military but considering they haven't won a fight since WWII (which would have ended the same with or without them) I don't see that they're that good.

But there wouldn't be any reason for the US to attack Germany. If they want us out we'll leave. Were I president we'd leave whether or not they wanted us to.

WORLD WAR III: This time, the Germans are the good guys.

That would be really Ironic.

I can just imagine the shooter videogame from 2110 That has you blasting away at charicatureized evil Americans.

I think it would be rather good fun to write Tom Clancy style sprawling techno-thriller where it was the USA who were the bad guys.

[NB This is not because I have anything against the USA, just that I've got rather bored over the years with Russia/China being the enemy of choice for authors].

Spec Ops: The Line used that to great effect as a way to humanize the thousands of people you kill over tge course of the game.

Keep telling yourself that but I've never seen a German base in the USA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com