German re-armament?

If Germany wanted to re-arm to secure its access to the Low Country ports and a greater market for its goods in Europe after the break up of the EU. What would the German military need to be able to do this and how long would it take?

It has been the great fear of Poland, the Low Countries and France that if they leave the EU then the Germans will simply re-arm and invade them. However German demographics are poor, its economic dynamism isn't what it was and its military is no threat. Despite Germany having the largest and best economy in Europe it is dependent upon exports to the EU and through the Low Country ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam the best ports in Europe.

I have serious worries about this 3rd German war, while everybody else is worrying about Russians I see the future being a Polish based alliance to thwart the Germans and the Russians with American support. The Americans obviously have the best military in the world, but it no longer has the force structure to engage in a large scale European war. The British and French hardly even have a military. If the Germans move and can re-arm quickly as they did after WW1 it would be terrible.

 

There's an old saying, "NEVER (*)(*)(*)(*) OFF A PRUSSIAN."

When Germany signs a non aggression pact with Russia, Poland better get ready for Germany to take back what is rightly theirs.

Poland only has one purpose, to separate Germany from Russia.

NATO, what was the purpose of NATO ? To fight the Soviet military.

What happened with the collapse of the Soviet Union ? President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who's not an American native born citizen but Czech born European who has a chip on her shoulder with Russian convinced slick Willey to expand NATO and put NATO troops on Russia's western borders. This is why you are seeing what's happening in the Ukrain today, there are some stupid people who want to put NATO on Russia's southern border.

What was the purpose of NATO ?

Keep feeding the German soldiers with brats and beer and they are less likely to return to their past. But watch out when the German left wing starts getting nationalistic, this will be the red flag to watch for.

 

In the short term, this seems an unlikely scenario sense all of these countries are still in NATO. I think you would have to have some sort of NATO breakup, a permanent American retreat, and a totally different political paradigm to rise in Germany to make this happen. So in other words, not soon, but a generation from now, who knows?

 

NATO can't operate without Germany though. If Germany re-arms NATO is meaningless. The question is why would Germany re-arm. The reason Germany built up its forces before WW1 was because it was bordering the largest army in the world in the Russian Empire and the French army, along with the Royal Navy. Germany had to be strong because the threat was great and it needed to secure its Empire, markets and trade. This is why WW1 happened German fear. WW2 happened because Germany needed to secure itself against the Soviet Union and needed resources to keep up its growth. The key link between all of these German actions was economic security. They have had economic security since reunification through the EU. They have had access to a large market and can export their excess production. What happens if they lose their economic security? Germany has three choices either accept an economic contraction, secure their market and ports by force or hope that other Europe nations without the EU will give Germany favourable terms. I hope that what happens is Germany has a medium economic contraction, moves to build up its military and then the other European nations offer Germany favourable terms. But I can say for sure that will happen.

 

I don't see what other option the Americans have though. The Russians maybe weak now, but in 20 years time they could be a resurgent power threatening to extend into their buffer and beyond. The Americans are perfectly justified in extending NATO into the Russian buffer and the Russians are perfectly justified in seeking this as a massive existential threat. What the Americans must no do is confront the Russians head on, the Americans would lose such an encounter. They Americans rather need to support Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary to do the heavy lifting against the Russians. With the Americans supporting the Polish based alliance and the nations in the buffer which don't want to be under Russian manipulation anymore.

The trouble the Russians have is they have no positive manipulation they can use. They don't have a great economy, so they can't cheapen the price of gas or offer the buffer states anything in terms of trade. The Russians have a military far stronger than anyone else in the buffer so they can't do a military alliance or partnership. Culturally the Russians are hated because of religion, language and history. So any move Russia makes is seen politically as a threat. Ironically it is Russia's comparative size which means it can't have a buffer in Ukraine, Moldova or the Baltic states, they all simply fear Russia to much.

 

NATO should have never been expanded. The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. What happened was that lady Albright who had a chip on her shoulder because to the Soviet occupation during WW ll of her homeland and wanted to continue the Cold War mentality.

The new Russia thinks the Cold War is over and what do they see, a military who's only purpose was to kill Russians was now on their borders.

Russia should have been brought under the U.S./European ally umbrella after the Cold War just like West Germany was after the Second World War. Or like Japan became an ally after the war in the Pacific. Russia, Europe and America all have a common enemy, Islamist jihadist. All want trading partners. All want to live in peace. And all don't want another war in Europe.

Russia even requested to become a member of NATO and the Clinton administration said no way jose.

The Clinton administration may have lit the fuse for another major war in Europe.

Now President G,W. Bush was able to repair the damage that was done and brought Russia in as an ally on the war against radical Islam, but I think it was VP Dick Cheney who still had the Cold War mentality and looked upon Putin as still being KGB. Cheney is probably right but he's not street wise and doesn't know how to deal with bullies.

 

We are moving off the topic of this thread. So I am not going to reply. However I appreciate your post, I think you made some good points.

 

There is another alternative for Germany: Jean-Claude Juncker calls for creation of EU army

 

I saw that the other day but still haven't read the article.

 

Germany does not need to invade western Europe they already bought it. As for rearmament they darn good weapon systems they only need to build more of them and they should there is another Mad Russian with ideas of grandeur dancing in his head and there is not that much distance between them. If they do rearm the Mad Russian would be an idiot to go after Germany.

 

The historical trouble of Germany was and is Navy. German Navy suffered the lack of carriers in WWII and today the situation is even worse.

The only sector in which German Navy is still impressive is the sector of U-boats [just to say, Israel has started from German U-boat to develop its underwater power]. A part that the German Navy is really poor.

Land forces and Air Force are better, but without at least a couple of battle carries with related battle groups ... Germany will remain an economical giant without military capabilities ...

 

This has been talked about for years. It isn't going to happen. In any case it isn't only an alternative so long as the EU exists.

 

Germany suffers because it has rubbish ports. This is why it isn't a naval power, it doesn't have the ports to make it worth while to build a navy. It isn't like the Germans couldn't build a navy, it is rather that the navy is less important than the air force and army. Germany could cause all kinds of problems for US, British and French carriers just with land based missiles, missile boats, land based aircraft and submarines. Also the impact of US carriers in Europe would be limited, the Americans would need to send a few armies to defeat Germany. Currently they don't have those forces and are cutting. The French are a wreck with seemingly no strategic planning and the British have wasted their spending on oversized carriers and pea shooter destroyers. The Italians and Spanish are unable to do anything.

If Germany can defeat the French, Low Countries and Poland within 6 months then it would be all over. It would take years to uproot Germany through military means and hundreds of thousands of lives. The better option would likely be to make peace and allow Germany to write a political treaty by which it gains the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam, has a free trade agreement with France, the low countries and Poland, while taking its historic lands in Poland. Now though Germany has an eastward buffer between itself and Russia. So there will be no war between the two of them. Which means that Germany has everything it has ever wanted.

 

Yes but Germany doesn't own these things its companies do. The companies will move to where they can get the most profit. Then Germany will have to follow or make sure its companies keep access to it.

Germany has nothing without the Americans. It would have to refit its entire weapons manufacturing plant and invest heavily in R&D. Of course Germany can do this, but it isn't as simple as just buying or building more stuff. Russia isn't mad and it doesn't have idea's of grandeur it is simply reacting to a threat it feels, perfectly rational actions by Ukraine. There is over 1,000 miles between Germany and Russia as vast distance in military terms.

 

There is a little detail you don't keep in the right consideration in your scenario: today France has got nuclear weapons and in case of German attack, it's not impossible Paris could decide to use one, like Americans did with Japan.

It would be a situation of extreme emergency which could allow French politicians to take an extreme decision.

Let's imagine that a new Blitzkrieg starts, French armies would be quickly in troubles.

But we would wonder about the American forces in Germany, first of all.
Let's imagine they do nothing [I do doubt!], French commands could decide to launch a limited nuclear attack to stop the Germans.

No, Germany cannot defeat France today [the only possibility would be that France renounces to use some tactical nukes, but in a so extreme context ...].

 

I know Germany couldn't defeat France today. However that is why I am asking the question how long would it take Germany to re-arm and which would they need to defeat France, Poland and the Low Countries?

Germany would like strike the French space based assets needed to launch those nuclear weapons and direct them. With that the French nuclear weapons no longer matter. In any case the German plan would likely be to suck France into the Low Countries and counter attack defeating the French military. They don't need to actually invade France to defeat its military and then threaten to invade.

 

Ok, I can help you: strategically Germany would need hunter-killer submarines to destroy the French submarines able to launch missiles with nuclear warheads; in fact the most dangerous rank of a nuclear force is represented by nuclear submarines. You cannot limit your preventive first strike [using stealth units and missiles] to land launch facilities. Previously, you have to find and to trace all the French submarines [to attack them in the same time]. In particular I would pay extreme attention to the FOST, which has been thought just to grant that France will be able to retaliate [at least one or two attack SSBN subs are always in deep waters].

 

Hmmm, no. You are confusing the reason and the consequence here. The reasons for Entente creation were the German actions, not the other way around.
The only "threat" they were facing were the French and they won't have any problems dealing with them on their own. Their conflict with Britain was primarly due to their own colonial ambitions and active buildup of their navy. Russian empire was not hostile at all and was much more interested in Balkans and Austro-Hungary.

But nooooo, they just had to anogonise Russia by supporting crumbling Austro-Hungary and Britain by demands of "their share" in the world. I am pretty sure French were not that interested in fighting them either.

They were the first one to declare war and the first one to start mobilisation, not out of imaginary "fear" but as great idioticy and unnececary agression.

 

I agree history shows Germany started WW1 and WW2. Remember why nations go to war. Fear, honor and perceived self interest. The fact is Germany perceived a Russian, French and British threat, real or not it doesn't matter.

 

What do you mean "if"? Germany has been "rearmed" for decades now.

Germany has over 60,000 members of their Army, with over 200 of one of the finest tanks in the world. In addition they use the PATRIOT missile system, over 200 modern fighter aircraft, and some of the finest Frigates (11) and conventional submarines (4) in the world. In fact, they are a major builder of ships for a great many nations. Among the countries that use German made ships are Italy, Columbia, Denmark, and even Israel.

 

In 600 million years, when the sun heats up enough to make our kind of life impossible on this planet, none of this will matter

 

True, although the figure for advanced life forms like humans is more like 1 billion, ±200 million years (with all life extinct from between 1.75-3.5 billion years).

Of course, the odds are that an ELE will happen far before that much time passes. Vulcanism, impact events, continental drift, runaway glaciation, runaway greenhouse, the potential causes are many not even including the warming of our sun.

 

It will be sunspots, solar flares and EMP from the sun that will knock the world back into the horse and buggy whip era. Most of the world has become so dependent on technology they will not be able to adopt, go into shock and will die.

Only right wing survivalist will survive. The world will no longer have to put up with liberals. The horse will take back it's rightful place in society. And buggy whip manufactures will become the 1 %. http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/worst-case-emp-scenario-half-in-u-s-dead/

 

Most of the third world won't see much difference other than foreign aid from advanced countries stopping.

 

I mean increase armaments for a war in Europe. They have been updating their equipment with high level technology and training, however I would say they were re-arming for war. As they did before WW2. The German military is also not as large as it was in the Cold war.