"Germans demand all US military leave, claiming US ..." Topic

…war with Russia is inevitable.

"A democratic socialist faction of the German parliament is demanding the United States withdraw all 35,000 American troops from their nation, claiming that a war with Russia is inevitable and that America's mere presence is incompatible with Germany's visions of peace.

Known simply in English as "The Left" (In German, "Die Linke") the party (which was founded in 2007) has claimed that America is responsible for illegal wars across the world, and that their presence within German borders is a violation of the peace doctrine enshrined in German law…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I imagine there may be war with Russia, but that will occur after the US pulls out, and Germany will find itself on the front lines and under attack again by their neighbors to the east, without a good and reliable friend, and without working aircraft and rifles, and far too few tanks.

A thorough investigation into the party funding would probably reveal the true source of these demands……Poland would welcome the relocation of the US forces too!

Sure, just as soon as they pay back the costs of defense for over 60 years and the expenses incurred for The Marshall Plan.

"Germans"? Really?
The title may be misleading but the article makes it clear this is a policy of a minority party. In the last elections, they gained just over 9% of the vote.
5% of Americans evidently believe the world is flat but I'd hardly use that to write, "Americans are Flat-Earthers".

So, I don't think it reflects any where near a majority of "Germans". Indeed, the best result I can find is that in 2019, on NATO, 64 percent of U.S. respondents and 65 percent of Germans reported having favourable views of the alliance. NB more Germans than Americans!

However, why the knee-jerk reaction, gents?
If you treat your allies with respect & consideration, certainly they will remain true.

And by the way, the Marshall Plan was done to protect the US. If Russian domination of Europe would have no effect on us we would not have spent the money. Plus mosst of that money came back to us as a devastated industrial Europe had to buy things, like locomotives engines, from the US. H

"If you treat your allies with respect & consideration, certainly they will remain true"

Works both ways. If you agree to pay your share of the defense pact, then pay your share. If you agree to have so many troops prepared for defense, then have those troops prepared.

"Sure, just as soon as they pay back the costs of defense for over 60 years and the expenses incurred for The Marshall Plan."

Sure, just as soon as you pay back the monetary value of the patents and scientific know-how taken after the war (Operation Paperclip etc.), and also the cost of refugees from the Middle East where U.S.-led wars destabilized whole countries? :)

This is me, backing away from this conversation, with buttocks firmly clenched …

Tempest in a teapot; as are many of today's headlines. It's a minority position, but should it become the democratically elected government position of Germany that all US forces leave; than we should respect their wishes. Wherever our troops are unwanted; we should bring them home. For far too long the neocons in both parties have involved us in costly foreign entanglements.

"If you agree to pay your share of the defense pact, then pay your share".

Nah, that's olde skool crazy talk there, MM. Expecting people to keep their word in this day and age?

Frau M. invited them to stay, so it's not our fault. Nice try there though, Cherno.

The United States never ratified The Treaty of Versailles, nor did it join The League of Nations (its articles violated US law).

The United States was not part of The London Conference (partitioning the Ottoman Empire)

The United States was not part of The San Remo conference (only having Observer Status)(establishing a French mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, and a British Mandate for Palestine)

The United States did not create that mess, nor, as Thresher01 notes, did the United States invite that mess to come and stay in the European Commonwealth (which is not a common wealth).

I'm not sure I'd disagree with the diplomatic blunder list presented. But surely the US is not blameless? You can make a pretty good case for the US enabling the rise of Hitler & the emergence of totalitarian states thanks to Woodrow Wilson's meddling.

Wilson and the aftermath of WW1:

link

Some light reading:
link

Let's not forget:Quote by Walter Payton: "We are stronger together than we are alone."

"You can make a pretty good case for the US enabling the rise of Hitler & the emergence of totalitarian states thanks to Woodrow Wilson's meddling".

LOL.

Yea, the Europeans (and America too, in some part, I suspect) aren't to blame for the extremely onerous reparations placed on the German citizens after WWI, which ACTUALLY laid the groundwork for German civil resentment over that, and Hitler's rapid rise to power?

Neville Chamberlain gets a pass too?

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I'd be fine pulling out of Germany (spent many weeks there myself on the line in the 70s) but doubt Russia is their biggest problem.

"Frau M. invited them to stay, so it's not our fault."

So… what exactly is not "your" (the U.S.'s?) fault?

+1 Cherno

Yes, you sometimes have to ask the hard questions.

I initially assumed that their position could only be rooted in modern progressive politics, since surely no one on the left could have missed the fall of the USSR! But apparently they are a successor party to the SED, with a grab bag of basically old school communist and modern progressive policies, and based on quick internet search of English sources, seem to none to keen on apologising for the excesses of East German communist rule and has some elements that the German authorities monitor, so who knows…

"So… what exactly is not "your" (the U.S.'s?) fault?".

Frau M. inviting any and ALL comers into the EU with her "open borders policy", and promising they can stay, much to the chagrin and marked displeasure of many of her own citizens and numerous countries within Europe. Thereby creating a "flood" of refugees into the country, from far off lands, resulting in a huge financial burden being placed on the already financially strapped populations living in over-taxed societies with high unemployment in many cases.

Given her background, a suspicious and cynical person might think she's playing for the "other side".

And which demographic in these open border EU countries are having most of the babies? In another generation or two finding a blonde haired blue eyed German speaking German is going to be a rare thing. It will be like trying to find a Native American in modern America.

Sure thing, 2015 migrant crisis had absolutely nothing to do with the Middle East intervention.
To summarize: There were no people from the ME that were willing to leave their countries, and then out of the blue the German Government announced that it would open it's borders to anyone willing to enter, and only then did millions of people pack their things and travel there? Interesting.

In another generation or two finding a blonde haired blue eyed German speaking German is going to be a rare thing.

Let's ignore the extreme exaggeration….why would this be an issue? What value do you put on specific hair & eye colour?

Given her background, a suspicious and cynical person might think she's playing for the "other side".

LOL Not the adjectives I'd use.

Well, USAFpilot, I guess you don't spend much time in New Mexico! I work with quite a few Navajo and Keres Pueblo Indians. Your point still stands, though.

why would this be an issue? What value do you put on specific hair & eye colour?

I put no value on appearance based on genetics; I'm sorry for you that you would even infer such a thing.

I'm merely making an observation.

Hi SouthernPhantom, I have been to NM, land of enchantment right? I think you understand my point and I certainly mean no disrespect to any indigenous peoples. On the contrary, I think their terrible treatment is a shameful chapter in our history.

I "inferred" nothing. Merely seeking a clarification.

Woodrow Wilson's meddling

Wilson wanted to demonstrate the global influence of the U.S… but he figured he could do that only if the U.S. were a belligerent.

The author has a strong Wilsonianism conspiracy theory, unfortunately not supported by history.
In the 1916 election Wilson ran on "he kept us out of the war" (with Germany and Mexico) while his opponent (Charles Hughes) criticized him for failing to take "necessary preparations" for possible war. Wilson had held military and naval spending to peace time levels during the first three years of the European war and maintained a strict neutrality. "must be neutral in fact as well as in name" . In response to Germany's adoption of submarine warfare he increased spending for the Navy in 1917.
Eventually, reports of German atrocities in neutral Belgium and occupied areas of France began to turn American sentiment away from neutrality.
Then Germany was caught tempting Mexico into war with America (The Zimmerman Telegram).
Finally Germany went to unrestricted submarine warfare and sank the Lusitania and tipped America into war. [Apparently the sub should have surfaced, and had the passengers and crew abandon ship, and then sunk her.]
In requesting a Declaration of War, Wilson stated that "we have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion… no material compensation… We are one of the champions of the rights of mankind."
No. History does not support a conspiracy theory of Wilsonianism seeking war to end America's isolationism.