Current German Military

Jonb955 · Post by **Jonb955** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:09 am

How did Germany go about recreating an army? (I mean west Germany after WWII) What are the current military restrictions (if any) still implemented on the German army of today???

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:46 am

The only restrictions implemented on the Bundeswehr are those by the Finanzministerium, but they are worse than any conditions by even the most revengeful enemy ever could be.

Fridolin · Post by **Fridolin** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:06 am

Have a look at D. Abenheim (1988), Reforging the Iron Cross. The Search for Tradition ion the West German Armed Forces. Princeto University Press. ISBN 0-691-05534-3
Not easy reading, but scholarly and informative.

Freiritter · Post by **Freiritter** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:42 pm

I've done some research online about the structure of the BundesRepublik and found some data on the Bundeswehr. The Bundeswehr is structured with a primarily defensive posture in mind. The standing active duty divisions of the Bundesheer ( If I'm not mistaken, at least the panzer divisions. ) are placed under the two NATO Corps with non-German commanders. I'm not sure, but I would think that the majority of German wartime strength would be in the Landwehr, a reserve component of the Bundeswehr organized within the German Lander. The Landwehr is much like the U.S. National Guard in concept and structure. There also seems to be a strong emphasis on civilian control of the military. If I'm not mistaken, The Bundeswehr's prime strategy is the defeat of an aggressor on German soil and to support NATO security missions within the overall NATO structure. BTW, I like the German Federal structure, that the executive power is limited by a strong legislature, known as the Bundestag. (?) The Bundestag itself is limited in that half of the legislators are also governors of the Lander, while the other half are like Senators. It's like if the U.S. Congress was composed of the state governors and the Senate.

Cordially,

Freiritter

Metroid 2 · Post by **Metroid 2** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:51 pm

What i'm waiting for is when Germany gets these restrictive shackles of her and truly becomes a non-influence nation, only this time they will be on the ''allies'' side and for the first time we'll see how Germany on its own can do to help keep peace in the world.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:15 am

Ritter, please, please, please, PLEASE, don't ever post such a nonsense again. I know that it is not your own fault, as you took that info from other sources, but I have never seen a more false, absurd and idiotic description of both our political system and our military. I don't know where you found that crap, but please, don't ever visit those sites again, will you promise? Gosh, I'm still pale and my knees are wobbling...

Fridolin · Post by **Fridolin** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:12 am

Stefan,
It coould perhaps be a good idea if, after demolishing FreiRitter's affirmations, you provided a short explanation of why and where he's wrong in each of his points. Yes, I know it could take ten minutes of your time, but I at least would be most grateful -and I suppose Freiritter also- if you correct his mistakes and give the correct answers apart from stating that his data -or his sources' data- are idiotic and absurd.
Cheers

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:06 pm

The executive power is limited by a strong legislature

Well, as far as I know, the separation of powers is a feature of all liberal democracies, so there is nothing specific german about it. I also don't see why the Bundestag would be an especially "strong" parliament, but now lets concentrate on the actual mistakes.

Half of the legislators are also governors of the Länder

Yuck! To begin with, our Länder have no governors. Governors are elected directly by the people. The governments of our Länder are elected by the Landtage, so there is a Ministerpräsident at the head of each Landesregierung. No Ministerpräsident can be and has ever been a member of the Bundestag at the same time. And then, as there are only 16 Länder, the Bundestag would have merely 32 members after this calculation.

The other half are like Senators

Although this an inappropriate comparison, at least there is some substance to this claim. In fact, half of the Bundestag members are directly elected in local constituencies and the other half is elected from Landeslisten. That means that you have two votes. With the Erststimme, you choose one of several persons who are competing for the seat from you local electoral district. The candidate with the most votes is elected (relative majority). With the Zweitstimme, you vote for a certain party. The parties have previously arranged Landeslisten with scores of candidates from the respective Land. The available seats are then distributed among the parties according to their share of Zweitstimmen (proportional representation). This system is much more democratic than the American one where a president does not need a majority of the popular vote.

The Bundestag IS the parliament, so it is wrong when Anglo-Saxon commentators are phantasizing about a "lower" and a "upper" house. The Bundesrat, where representatives from the incumbent Landesregierungen are assembled in proportion to the population of their Länder, fulfills some functions of a second chamber, but the Bundesrat can only stop laws that are concerning the responsibilities of the Länder (although these responsibilities are rather extensive).

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:45 pm

This system is much more democratic than the American one where a president does not need a majority of the popular vote.

Stefan, please, please, please, PLEASE, don't ever post such nonsense again (Sorry I could not resist).

As we all know, the Federal Chancellor is elected by the Bundestag. The party or coalition of parties with the most seats presents a candidate for Chancellor to the President. He then proposes this candidate to the Bundestag and a vote is held without debate. The candidate needs a majority to be elected.

In the US, there is a process of Presidential Primaries to determine the candidates who will represent the two major parties. However, there is an opportunity for independents and other candidates to run as well for the Presidency. In addition, there are elections for both congress and senate, where people have a possibility to influence policy making and these institutions greatly balance the power held by the President.

Given these facts, could you please explain the reasoning behind your statement?

Cheers,

Christian

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:13 pm

I only pointed out that an individual can become president of the United States even if another candidate scores a greater number of popular votes than the winner. That is, he can become president AGAINST the wish of the majority of the voters. There is a similar flaw in the British system of majority vote: in a scenario where Party A gathers 51% of the vote in every constituency and party B gathers 49% of the vote in every constituency, 100% of the parliamentary seats will go to party A and not a single seat will go to party B. Do you think this is real democracy? Well, I don't.

Freiritter · Post by **Freiritter** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:24 pm

First off, sorry, Stefan. I can't remember where exactly I found this data, so, please accept my apologies for the inaccuracies. Could you direct me to a site with accurate data? Was I also wrong about the Bundeswehr?

Cordially,

Freiritter

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:38 pm

I only pointed out that an individual can become president of the United States even if another candidate scores a greater number of popular votes than the winner. That is, he can become president AGAINST the wish of the majority of the voters

You have been spreading this nonsense for ever and been corrected on numerous occasions. The fact of the matter is that nobody can be happy in the way Florida handled the last election. However, following the recount in Florida, the State Election Canvassing Commission, in accordance with the laws of the state of Florida, declared Bush the winner by 537 votes.

Besides, do you honestly believe that the backroom horse trading by parties and coalitions to come up with a single candidate is a better approach and more representative of the people's wishes?

Christian

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:08 pm

Freiritter,

Here is a link that might be of interest:
http://eng.bmvg.de/bundeswehr/wehrpflic ... /index.php

Cheers,

Christian

John Kilmartin · Post by **John Kilmartin** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:46 pm

Christian,
Thanks for that link I found it most useful.
Stefan,
British style parliamentary has many variations from the Irish system with a proportional lower house and an upper house elected by Universities to the Canadian system where the upper house is appointed by the Prime Minister as vacancies occur with Senators appointed till their mandatory retirement age of 75 and a first past the post lower house where theoretically the government could be formed with less than 25% of the popular vote (that would be 50% of 50% of the seats). The current government in Canada for example holds about 60% of the seats with about 40% of the popular vote.
The problem with US elections IMHO is not so much the electoral college system as if I am not mistaken this is only the third time a President has been elected with less of the popular vote than his opponent but with the use of voting machines. This is only going to become worse with the use of electronic voting machines where there are no physical ballots to recount.

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:36 am

This is only going to become worse with the use of electronic voting machines where there are no physical ballots to recount

Many would argue that the old punch card method is the least reliable system. Card damage or the common problem of "hanging chads" (Remember?) may confuse the card reader or cause it to malfunction given an inaccurate count of votes. Given the nonsense we observed in Florida during the last Presidential election, I for one would have a whole lot more faith in an electronic device.
Experts have also suggested that voters using an electronic system could be given a paper confirmation of their votes which would enable them to verify things right on the spot.

Christian