So its 3 years in the trumps presidency but no state visit to Germany yet

I think the word "pacifist" is being used in different ways here. The mainstream use of the word is to mean someone who refuses to use violence under any circumstances.

Sometimes it's used to mean people who don't want to start unnecessary wars -- this would certainly include some soldiers, and most of the rest of a normal population. The problem is what is defined as 'unnecessary'. By the time they start, the populations of the warring sides have come to believe that the war is necessary. If this were not true, we wouldn't have had wars and wouldn't have any now and wouldn't have any in the future. But we have and we do and we will.

Sometimes the word "pacifist" is used to refer to people who oppose a particular war, or oppose their country's participation in it. I recall this word being used to describe Rosa Luxemburg when a film about her life was made a few decades ago. But she was opposed to World War One (opposed to all sides), not to armed violence in general as an abstraction, which she understood would be necessary to achieve her socialist political goals.

These last two uses of the word "pacifism" are confusing, however.

As for Germany's future role in Europe, from the military point of view, this is an open question. We'll know that Germany is serious when she acquires nuclear weapons. For something like that to happen, German internal political culture will have to undergo a profound shift, almost as profound as the shift from Weimar to Reich.

Of course, that could not possibly happen, because in our world, everything is always getting better and better, everywhere.

 

Trump hates Marxist Merkel and vice versa

 

Germany doesn't pay it's fair share and is a very poor ally so why visit?

 

US and Germany /France have never been close allies

 

US best allies are Australia , Japan , UK, Israel and Canada

Seems relations with UK have become more distant and japan does nothing for us

 

The problem is, although Germany and Japan COULD be formidable military powers, there is a bit of, er, history that has made the US (and its WWII allies) reluctant to encourage them to return to their full military potential.

But they're both liberal democracies now. Germany could revert, if its idiotic leadership carries on with its Open Borders policy, which will allow the Far Right in that country to capture the resentment of the indigenous population.

The Japanese, having committed just the ordinary war atrocities, and against a people no one cares about anyway, have not been burdened with the war guilt of the Germans, so their immigration policy is the one most countries have: a drib here and a drab there, but no large numbers of people with a culture radically different from ours, thank you very much.

We'll see what happens.

In the meantime, if the leadership of both countries is prudent, they will both have initiated very very discreet research programs -- elite teams of fewer than half a dozen people, mainly scientists and engineers -- tasked with answering the following questions: how quickly can we manufacture our own nuclear weapons, what would it take to do it, and can the necessary materials be acquired secretly or without their purpose being obvious?

Why? Because it's obvious that there is a serious risk, at some point in the future, of the US withdrawing its security guarantee to both or either countries. At the moment, the American nuclear umbrella covers both of them. If a Bad Guy nukes a German or Japanese city, and then threatens massive retaliation against the US if it gets involved, we are pledged to strike back, even if it means running the risk of losing all our own cities.

Now we all know what steadfast self-sacrificing loyality the US has shown to its allies in the past, so this pledge serves as a deterrent to any potential enemy of Japan or Germany.

But who knows what the future may bring?

So you can be sure that at some point in the past, or the future, German and Japanese scientists are studying papers on the preparation of uranium hexafluoride, and not just because of an abstract interest in the chemistry of heavy metals.

 

Absolut nonsense.

 

.....not being rude or anything....but this post is a spoof....yes?

 

Hey, this is a public forum. When I post something, if someone else thinks I'm an idiot, let them say so, if that's their style! If you can't stand the heat ... etc. Ideally, they'll back it up with some evidence.

So ... my working assumption is that the ruling classes of large, powerful nations are not pacfists, don't believe that we have entered the era of permanent good will and peace among men, and that they DEFINITELY don't believe in the undying loyalty of the USA to its allies-of-the-moment. Especially after the last three years.

So ... for the same reason that all big military powers maintain biological warfare laboratories -- just in case, just to keep up with the field, just so that they have ready expertise on hand because you never know ... for this reason, I assume that the public image of the Germans --boo hoo hoo, we were so wicked, we just love peace ... is not really shared by their top people, not at a really deep level, although of course it's the kind of thing that they will never say. Sort of like white liberals if they see an obvious homosexual talking to their thirteen year old son, or two or three Black families moving into their neighborhood. They say the right things but are prepared to act.

But with the Germans ... maybe the mask really has grown into the face. I don't believe it, but you're welcome to. It cetainly seems to have made progress with a lot of the younger generation, according to something I saw a few years ago. Their young college-educated people seem as superficial and self-absorbed as ours. But the no-nonsense older men who actually run the place? I doubt it. But who knows? For what it's worth here's The Spectator on the subject: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/12...any-but-do-the-germans-still-fear-themselves/

But with the Japanese ... no. No guilt there. "Nanking? Where's that?" And to be fair, their atrocities were not qualitatively worse than the atrocities white armies carried out against non-white colonials,or even against each other: Red Army in Germany, anyone? No, they're perfectly happy to let the stupid Americans defend them, and spend many times more, proportionately, of their budget on war preparations, while it lasts.

And they are proud of their war dead, all of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine

At the moment, development of nuclear weapons would be hugely controversial domestically, opposed vehemently by the US, and unnecessary.

But intelligent people know that politics cannot be projected forward linearly. Everything changes. And intelligent people try to have contingency plans for the future -- if this happens, do so-and-so, if that happens, do something else -- and a possible future development is no US in the far Pacific, and two nuclear-armed neighbors who do not like Japan for good historical reasons.

But maybe I was wrong about their looking into how to make a nuclear weapon. Some simple Googling revealed this:

. So, I was doubly wrong: no 'research', since it's not needed, and they're not all that discreet about talking about it either. [SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program ]

 

Germany and nukes, nope. What for ?
You may not have followed Europe and the EU that close and missed what is going on.
In a few years there will be a EU defense initiative. It already has been practiced for over a decade. German troops in France under French command, French troops in Germany, Dutch, Belgium, Polish, Hungarian and so on. Not much hoopla about it. But the next step is coming.
Leyen, former German defense Secretary, spearheaded the EU initiative, with great support of Macron. She is now President of the EU commission You can expect through her tenure that this initiative will be pushed and it will eventually replace NATO for Europe. France is a nuclear power and will bring in that power, grudgingly. For one reason, you nuke Germany, the fall out will make all of central Europe a rather nasty place to live. You hit Germany, you hit France, simple as that. Europe has a Nuclear power in its middle. One is enough.
Germany will not built nukes, Germany will contribute lots of money to the nuclear force France has, as part of the EU defense forces.
No secret scientist in Germany, or any of that BS.
You have to understand, Germany is not this single Nation affaire, were it stand by itself against the rest of the World. Germany like France and all the other central European countries are the founders of the EU, they know what is at stake. They very much understand that the US has become a not reliable partner, a rogue within NATO.
What you will see in the next 5 years, those founding Nations will lay the foundation to a EU Military and than the rest of the EU will join.
I am very sure Trump will be reelected, no doubt. He will keep on harassing the US partners, every tweet, every action he takes, will just advance the EU programs, to the point were the EU will tell the US to leave.

 

And that would be awesome!! Then the EU's alligator mouth will have to foot it's own bills. I am all for canning NATO because NATO is a national security threat to the United States. Our poor relations with Russia is because of NATO and the jackasses running the EU.

 

So Germany will rely on the French nuclear umbrella, once the Americans leave? Seems unlikely in the long run.

I think the problem is this: there is a huge advantage to uniting all the European states into one great super-power that can take its place on the world stage along with the Americans, Chinese, and Russians.

No doubt the many of the leaders of France and Germany (and the UK) would like to see this happen, eventually.

But there is a counter-trend, among the peoples: not to want to have their traditional way of life disrupted and changed, not to be subject to decrees and laws issuing from distant unelected untouchable bureaucrats, often from different national backgrounds, all infected with political correctness. Sometimes this can take an ugly form.

So the trend in terms of state-formation is the other way: people trying to get out from big super-conglomerations and have their own countries, where the great majority is of the same culture. Fifty states after WWII become 200. Even in the European colonies, they'd rather give up flush toilets and paved roads and shops full of food, to be ruled by a dictator who impoverishes them, but looks like them.

I'm not saying this is a good thing -- in some ways I don't think it is. But it's just reality at the moment. The long term trend of our species is towards a common culture, which will then permit political boundaries to be dissolved, or become meaningless. Once we're all college graduates, maybe with genetically-engineered IQs of 150, and all speaking Mandarin as a second language, then we will see a reversal of the trend. But that's many generations away.

Germany is the natural leader of Europe. If the stupid child-like Kaiser had just told his Hapburg cousins that assassination was an occupational hazard of being a ruler, and maybe even to be smart and let the Serbs go ... it would be the leader of Europe today. But history keeps it from stepping up and playing that role. Shows you what can happen when a mighty nation gets a stupid child-like leader, I guess.

So we have the contradiction of the strongest power in Europe, relying on its weaker ancient enemy for its ultimate defense.
Well, it might work, so long as the Russians have a cool-headed leader, as they do now.

We'll see, when the Americans go home.

What many Europeans don't understand is that there is little appetite, among ordinary American voters, to spend huge amounts of money 'defending' Europe, when Europe is perfectly capable of defending itself.

On the Left, yes, for short-term contingent reasons (to have a stick to beat Donald Trump with) there is a lot of anti-Russian rhetoric. But this is strictly contrary to the historic attitude of the Left, especially towards Russia, which many on the Left historically have had a long romance with -- when it was an outright dictatorship, but one which was 'socialist'. Generally, the Left's base is 'anti-war' and anti-military, and has no great desire to keep a large garrison in Europe.

On the Right, it's different. Rightwingers are reflexively patriotic, and thus pro-military. But over the last 15 years, they've been taught a harsh lesson: it's easy to knock over some third-rate banana republic like Panama or Grenada. But getting stuck in a tribal war, as in Afghanistan or Iraq, is a source of nothing but misery. And generally, it's these people whose sons go off to war. So they've changed enormously since the USA! ALL THE WAY! days. That was part of Trump's appeal -- that he might work out better relations with the Russians.

And although the 'defense' industry and the Washington Cold War academic establishment, and the dwindling band of neo-cons will resist this furiously, the reality is, eventually political power at the top will come into alignment with the base, and the Americans will re-negotiate their relationship with Europe and others. I doubt we will become 'isolationist'. I hope not. We should have alliances. But they will be genuine alliances, not relationships where we do the heavy lifting and the others watch and criticise.

So let the Europeans re-arm. If they're smart, they'll let the Germans, who have proved they're very good at war, take the lead.

 

It's always been a "cloak and dagger" relationship with the two of those.

 

US has over 40 million Germans or so

Problem with Western Europe is Marxism and their new invaders that have flooded in

 

Well ... as for "Marxism" by which I think you mean socialism-lite, I think we underestimate the influence of what we may call "culture" on economic arrangements.
The Marxists thought that culture didn't matter very much. What mattered was the level of the forces of production, and the superstructural 'relations of production' that corresponded to them. In other words, all capitalist societies would be essentially alike, likewise all socialist ones.

The Europeans never adopted full-blooded socialism - some nationalizations, a lot of taxation and regulation, but the capitalist/market system continued and continues to operate.
And it varies a lot from one country to another. The Germans do very well, the Greeks not. In Germany you pay your taxes, in Greece not.
The Swedes made a success of socialism-lite for a while, then it became obvious it was slowing them down so they backed out of a lot of it in the early 90s.
As the British did under Mrs Thatcher ten years earlier.
In Sweden, workers via their unions bargain hard with the bosses, then when a deal is made they work hard to make their company a success. In the UK, traditionally, this was not
so. (There's a good book which compares the two countries, by a Brit who emigrated to Sweden in the early 70s: Fishing in Utopia.)

So Europe has done pretty well -- its standard of living is comparable to America's.

As for letting in lots of Muslims ... now about 5% of the population and growing... the future will tell. They have certainly made life more exciting, especially in Sweden.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ce-in-sweden-linked-to-60-bomb-blasts-increas

 

Its called social marked economy, might want to read up on Ludwig Erhard. He basically took Bismarck one step further.
It has nothing to do with socialism. It is the understanding, if workers have rights, good working Unions, are through a social network well taken care of, superbly educated and trained you have a more balanced and rich society.
The wealth of Europe far overshadows the US. The US might have more billionaires, but the middle class wealth is far greater in Europe.
Just take a look at healthcare and its cost. The US is burdened with a extremely costly system, 30 million with out insurance. The elderly stranded in medicare, which covers only 80%. In the EU health insurance is affordable, how about $300 for a Platinum plan, 100% everything, how about under 200 $ medicare, 100% everything, no plan B needed.
Education, free, from first Grade to University, no student loan debt.
The list is endless and it is a sign of true wealth, real wealth.
When ever I am in Europe, I spent some time to just look at infrastructure, the quality of construction, how they rebuilt, restored, how people dress, what they drive and so on. The wealth is just mind boggling.
One might see that along the East coast, maybe, or on the West Coast, maybe, it is the overall wealth that blows me away.
Middle class in Germany, is upper middle class in the US, without the debt. Just stunning.
That is what social marked economy has created, from the ashes of WWII
Not socialism, not Marxism, both are gigantic failures.
Yes, the more you have the more you should contribute, progressive taxation and yes, ownership, wealth has a responsibility, as it says in the German constitution. Which means the wealthy, the owners, like me, have a responsibility, to everybody else, besides themselves, you share, because what you have, you could not have, without the infrastructure everybody built for you
Sounds familiar, Obama President of the United States of America, its manifested in the German constitution, the former West German and it made this little country, one of the richest countries in the world, far richer than the US, I mean way, way richer.
They have no fricking idea how to spent the billions the have stashed away, private, industry and all the governments from Feds to the smallest town.
Did you know that there are still 20 billions German Mark, in cash, are held by private hands, not cashed in or converted in Euros, they are not worthless.
Folks in the US have no idea how wealthy they are and how much real cash they have.

 

Yes, I'm fairly ignorant about the economy of Europe, more so than I would like to be.
I think by 'Europe' you mean 'Germany'. And here is where 'culture' comes in. The French also have an extensive welfare state, but the 'culture' -- basically, the attitude to the state -- is different.
Which is why I think it's tricky to say, "It worked (or didn't work) here, so it will work there." What works in Stockholm may not work in Detroit.
However, I am basically in favor of adopting more of what works in Germany -- starting with healthcare, although I would look at how ferociously-capitalist Singapore does it first.

In fact, this approach to 'social economics' is something advocated in a new book by one of Trump's speech writers, FH Buckley, in The Republican Workers Party. He advocates
the transformation of the Republican Party into a patriotic, socially-moderate party, but with basically a New Deal economic program. I would love to see this, but am not optimistic
about it's occurring.

 

No I do not mean Germany. Ludwig Erhard a conservative and a Kanlzer of Germany, is the father of the Social Economy Market, his ideas, which were implemented, spread all over Europe. Erhard expanded on the ideas of Lord Bismarck, who implemented a social revolution in the late 1800, healthcare ( the oldest in the world ), social security, unemployment, retirement, free education. All those systems, were installed in in German Reich in the late 1800. The first country which had such a comprehensive system. Some of those systems already existed in the small German States before reunification in 1870. But he got the drift, if Germany wanted to prevent social unrest and wanted to become a industrial world power, naturally a military world power, it need well educated workers, rather well educated workers, engineers, managers and soldiers of all ranks. Especially the workers, they had to be lifted out of the no future crap life, of the early industrial age.
Lord Bismarck, born into a privileged live, because of his blue blood, all powerful, far more than the Emperor, rich beyond our billionaires dreams, the manifest of royal power, god given power. That guy had a serious brain, looking into the future, not a freeking socialist, neither was Erhard.
Erhard was a staunch conservative capitalist, the free market man, he was one of the guys behind the German Economic Wonder, Wirtschaftswunder, after WWII, he ran that Program, sheer capitalism. But he understood, as well as Bismarck, if you want to keep it going, you have to force the top, by law, to share the profits and enrich the working class, empower them, spread the wealth.
That spread from Germany to the rest of Europe, after WWII.
The rich are still rich and are getting richer every day, that's part of capitalism, but Social Markey Economy distributes some of that enormous wealth, by law, to the middle class, through the social systems, which are not a benefit in a workers contract, not a entitlement, they are a right, by law.

 

Look up the Bismarck system, its complicated. You have Government involved, Unions, Trades.
A Union or a Trade Organization can have its own health insurance, the Feds has its.
How does it work?
The Feds even with their own insurance have only oversight. The Fed insurance is so to speak a independened organization, than there are over 20 union, trade or other insurance organizations. They are all non profits. Every employer insures its employees in one of those. They all, employees, pay the same amount, based on a percentage of their taxable income, around 15% , at the present in Germany, which includes your wife and children. If your wife works and you file joint, your wife and children are exempt.
From a certain income you are free to choose Private Insurance. If you are selfemployed, you have private insurance, or if the construct of your company allows you to be a employee, like a S Corporation, than you can choose one of the many non profits government regulated insurance companies and you pay 15% of your reported taxable income

 

Look up the Bismarck system, its complicated. You have Government involved, Unions, Trades.
A Union or a Trade Organization can have its own health insurance, the Feds has its.
How does it work?
The Feds even with their own insurance have only oversight. The Fed insurance is so to speak a independened organization, than there are over 20 union, trade or other insurance organizations. They are all non profits. Every employer insures its employees in one of those. They all, employees, pay the same amount, based on a percentage of their taxable income, around 15% , at the present in Germany, which includes your wife and children. If your wife works and you file joint, your wife and children are exempt.
From a certain income you are free to choose Private Insurance. If you are selfemployed, you have private insurance, or if the construct of your company allows you to be a employee, like a S Corporation, than you can choose one of the many non profits government regulated insurance companies and you pay 15% of your reported taxable income

 

I know about Bismarck superficially: I quote his 'blood and iron' observation about once a week, and note the new Kaiser's dropping him was one of the great disasters of history, since it probably led to WWI. And I know that he was intelligent enough to learn the lessons of 1848 and that the rising new classes of capitalism couldn't just be held down by raw force -- so you had the Anti-Socialist law AND social insurance.

But, to be honest, I am tolerably ignorant about the details of German history, except perhaps for a little more knowledge about the 1918-33 period.

It will be very difficult to forge a revitalized American patriotic/conservative movement from Trump's base, that breaks with the 'libertarian' economic approach of the mainstream Republican establishment, which is mainly low taxes on the rich and relaxing environmental controls and maintaining a fat defense industry with our soldiers stationed all over the world, plus putting billions of dollars into the pockets of various foreign govenments.

Most ordinary working people have to get on with their lives, they have jobs to go to and a family to raise -- how they be expected to know about the crimes of Saudi Arabia, how much we give to the Pakistani military, who pays what taxes, etc?

It will take the emergence of an intermediate layer of new Republicans and maybe some new Democrats to craft a different approach ... maybe not even within either old party, although third parties in the US are very very unlikely ... it's not accidental that Tulsi Gabbard gets a lot of favorable attention among some conservatives. But we'll see.

 

I agree with you, with Bismarch, there would have been WWI and the silly fleet arms race with the UK. The political sentiment at that time was " the pilot is leaving the ship". Which was true.
What most US citizens do not understand, the difference between social and socialism. Mostly they throw it all in a big box and than the sink is Marxism.
A social market economy is a capitalistic system, which requires that the rich and better of have a responsibility concerning the less better of, but the less better of still have to contribute and the government is the regulating institution. It spreads the wealth, creates new wealth.
I have no problem with people being rich. I consider myself rather wealthy, upper level middle class, I managed to accomplish the US dream, started with nothing and am now rather well of, in the US in Colorado. I am a European Conservative, which amounts to a Reagan Democrat. I know the US system, inside out. It will implode.
Except if a guy like Bismarck comes along, who has the power and vision to install a social just system, even if it is what Bismarck did, to take the wind out of the socialists.
Fiscal, the US needs a law, which requires a balanced budget and only allows deficit spending in economical and military emergencies. ( Germany ).
The US has to dislodge its social programs from the budget, make them profitable, surpluses can not be touched for other stuff, nest eggs for rough times.
One can not cut entitlements because a new aircraft carrier needs to be payd for
I do not see anywhere in the US a person running for office who has a vision or a plan, for the future, were you could say, YES.