It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why hasn't Germany got nukes?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Did the French attack Germany?

Well, technically speaking they and Britain declared war on Germany before Germany did opposite, admittedly because Germany had invaded Poland. Hitler originally didn't really want war with Britain, the hatred of the NSDAP was directed against jews and communism. The USSR was more of their natural enemy rather than Britain, despite any Molotov - Ribbentrop pact. Hitler also originally didn't want war with the US either, since he knew very well it was fresh US troops that made Germany lose in WWI. Hitler for example explicitly ordered German U boats not to fire on any ships they noticed carrying an American flag, while US warships were purposely attacking German U boats even before the Germans declared war on the US. The latter happened mainly because Japan had declared war on the US and because Hitler couldn't win Britain by that time as long as the US kept supplying it. Not that I'm trying to excuse Germany or anything. Just trying to avoid simplified versions of history.

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:21 AM

Originally posted by INc2006
ok dawg, first go read your history books, china was on the allied side, or rather it was being attacked by Japan, and japan was the one that sided with Hitler, you obviously have the all american ideology, and that ideology is stupid and dumb. look now please the French and the British were the ones who declared war, no Germany, and germany didn't want war with the brits or the french!

Point taken, of course Germany was "allied" with Japan, not China. It was a simple word mistake because I was in a hurry. But I am not your "dawg", and I am not American. In fact, I AM german. Also, what would it matter if I were American? My opinion still would not be less valid, and your "guilt meter" would still be flawed because you are apologizing the Germans.

It doesnt matter that THEY declared war first. It was Germany that became the threat, and if not for the defense of Poland, France and Britain naturally had to declare war for their own safety. And BTW, declaring war does not necessarily lead to military action. This can be seen that despite declaring war, the French and Brits built their defenses and didnt mount and offensive. It STILL was Germany that attacked the North first and then the West. And it also doesnt take a genius to realize that, once France, the UK and the Soviet Union had been defeated, the USA just possibly might have taken steps of her own to protect her interests and integrity.

For this we Germans are to blame, and we alone, because WE started this war based on faulty assumptions that the other European powers would keep quiet and appease the expansionist german policy as long as it didnt harm them. And thats why your "40% guilt for Germany" is ridiculous. If anything the Soviets share a blame, because they secretly sanctioned a degree of German expansion in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Anyway, all this STILL doesnt explain why Germany doesnt have nukes. Despite being the popular pastime to evaluate Germany based on the Third Reich, one CANNOT explain every power shift and development within Europe only with the the experiences from the World Wars. The development of modern Europe is much more characterised by the necessities of the Cold War.

[edit on 6/7/2006 by Lonestar24]

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:25 AM

I would have to disagree about the blame for WW2, Soviet Union was just as quilty as Germany, since they approved the attacks against poland, denmark and norway. And USSR attacked Finland '39, and forcefully Annexed baltic countries...

Both Germany and USSR are to be blamed for the escalation of war, had USSR refused to sign Ribbentrop/Molotov deal, Germany would have had to restrain/cancel it's attacks to north and west.

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:37 PM
i'm not excusing germany i'm just saying that Germany wasn't the sole reason for the war, and i'm sorry, you talked like Americans on these boards, many of them are pretty much ignorant about history and take it simple and blame germany for the war right away. all i'm saying is germany isnt to blame for everything in that war, ok how about this germany 50% to blame, the Allies 40%, and the USSR 10%. you see i keep saying 10% to the USSR because it approved of what the Germans did but that doesn't mean that it wanted WWII, and an invasion of Finland, well that's nothing it was only strategic, and plus any country with the power to take Finland or any country on a strategic area would do it at that time. the USSR basically approved the german plans because it wanted to secure it's own self, and didn't want to get carried into a huge war, unfortunatly it still got into the war. as for the Allies they were 40% to blame because they declared war not to protect the jews that are being slaughtered or to protect Czeckoslovakia, Denmark, or even Poland it was only to protect there supremacy in europe, europe at that time and the world was controlled by the brits and French, and as Germany was growing, they found Europe slipping out of there hands so they went on and declared war, so hitler declared war back, and invaded france to secure the continental borders. imagine what a fatal military and strategic mistake it woudl've been if Germany attacked the USSR first and left France alone. the french would've attacked and it would've been worse than the defeat Germany suffered later on, except without a normandy, or any resistance all the way to the german border, attacking france was out of strategic needs to protect the german border. now i'm not excusing Hitler or germany of the war as i said before but you have to state the facts.

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:21 PM
Just a little side note USSR never took or invaded Finland, they sure as hell tried, but we stopped the red army and killed about 400 000 soviets while loosing about 50 000 of outr own (dead and wounded)

The blame should go 50-50 to Germany and USSR since they were the ones who divided europe in their own secret deals.

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by northwolf

I would have to disagree about the blame for WW2, Soviet Union was just as quilty as Germany, since they approved the attacks against poland, denmark and norway. And USSR attacked Finland '39, and forcefully Annexed baltic countries...

Both Germany and USSR are to be blamed for the escalation of war, had USSR refused to sign Ribbentrop/Molotov deal, Germany would have had to restrain/cancel it's attacks to north and west.

I'm not about to dive into a pointless blame game so I'll just make one post and leave it at that. Flame me away, lol.

Northwolf, as a Finn I can see why you might feel Russia was equally to blame than Germany, afterall it is a unfortunate twist of your national history that..... well you know what I was about to say.

But the rest of the world doesn't normally see it your way. Russia was scared that Germany would attack them, they were caught between a rock and a hard place and UK wasn't looking like it was going to help them so they had to make the deal with the devil (germany) so to speak. And Hitler would not automatically have cancelled his attacks to the North and West. I'm not saying that the USSR wasn't "bad" or that Stalin didn't have expansionist ideas, but your post paints it somewhat out of proportion. Being Finland in 1939 would suck though.

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:29 PM
Back to topic, about US nuclear arsenal in Europe, under US custody in peace but to be dlivred to allies in war:

Printer Friendly
News Analysis: An End to U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe?
Oliver Meier

Brown Supports Continuing UK Nuclear Weapons Program
NATO’s policy of basing U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in several European countries has lasted long after the end of the Cold War, despite increasing pressure from parliamentarians, disarmament advocates, and public opinion. Now, a more mundane yet more tangible force may now tip the balance against the status quo: money. Public statements from and interviews with government officials and experts in Europe indicate that European governments may not be willing to make the investments in a new generation of nuclear-capable aircraft or participate in relevant technology sharing that would be needed to sustain the policy.

Nuclear sharing was developed during the Cold War to deepen U.S.-European military ties and to create a forum where Europe could have a say in Washington’s nuclear policies. As the Cold War ended, about 4,000 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons remained on European soil, intended to offset Soviet conventional and nuclear forces. In a series of bilateral understandings with the Soviet Union and then with Russia in the early 1990s, President George H. W. Bush sharply reduced that number. Today, an estimated 480 B-61 gravity bombs remain deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, which also possesses its own nuclear arsenal. Of these weapons, 180 are assigned for use by the five non-nuclear-weapon states. These weapons remain under U.S. custody during peacetime but can be released to U.S. allies for delivery in times of war.

U.S. and European officials readily acknowledge that they have held on to the weapons for predominantly political rather than military reasons. In its 1999 Strategic Concept, NATO implied that improved relations with Russia meant that the weapons’ military purpose had largely ended, but called for retaining the weapons as a means of shoring up the political solidarity of the alliance. U.S. and European officials have also seen the weapons as a potential bargaining chip to encourage Russia to part with its own much larger arsenal of such weapons, variously estimated at about 3,000 deployed operational warheads.

But the status quo is imperiled by the aging of NATO’s nuclear-capable fighter fleet. Over the next several years, a number of European NATO members involved in nuclear sharing arrangements have to decide whether to replace aging fighter aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons, commonly known as “dual-capable aircraft.” Amid budget pressures and growing public concern, some key groups are beginning to balk. These concerns come as NATO is expected to update the 1999 Strategic Concept, including a possible revision of its nuclear doctrine.

(Damn it this forum has a lot of limitations)

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:31 PM
German Disagreements

Discussion of the issue is the most highly charged in Germany, which hosts an estimated 150 U.S. nuclear weapons. Germany relies exclusively on Tornado PA-200 aircraft to deliver U.S. nuclear weapons. The Tornado entered service in the early 1980s and had been expected to be phased out over the next 15 years. Nuclear-capable Tornados are deployed at Büchel Air Base, along with an estimated 20 B-61 bombs. Germany had been expected to begin retiring them as early as 2012.

The Tornados are to be replaced by the Eurofighter (Typhoon), a multinational aircraft built jointly by Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. But the German government in July 2004 told parliament—the Bundestag—that it does not intend to certify the Eurofighter to carry nuclear weapons. Such certification would require Germany and its partners to grant the United States access to Eurofighter technology, which Europeans are reluctant to do because they fear the loss of commercial proprietary information.

Berlin is looking for a way to delay making a decision. In February, the government stated that it might keep some Tornados beyond the expected end of their service life in 2020. The only clear purpose for such a move would be to preserve the ability of the German air force to deploy U.S. nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, there is concern within NATO about Germany’s long-term commitment to nuclear sharing. A senior NATO official told Arms Control Today June 2 that a decision by the German government to “extend the life of the Tornado would only delay and not solve the issue.”

Such fears are heightened by growing pressure from the Bundestag. Since April 2005, all three opposition parties in the Bundestag—the liberal Free Democrats, the left-of-center Green Party and the socialist Left Party—have introduced resolutions calling for a complete end to Germany’s involvement in nuclear sharing and a withdrawal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from German territory.

This year, the debate also is taking place within the government. When the draft of a new Defense White Paper was released to the Bundestag this spring, an unprecedented dispute about German support for NATO’s nuclear doctrine erupted between center-left Social Democrats and conservative Christian Democrats, which together form the governing “Grand Coalition.”

The draft, which was leaked to a German internet site (, states that nuclear deterrence will remain necessary to deter hostile states possessing nuclear weapons, including states with a fundamentalist ideology. Echoing earlier NATO language, the draft goes on to argue that “the common commitment of Alliance partners to war prevention, the credible demonstration of Alliance solidarity and nuclear posture require also in the future German participation in nuclear tasks.” The text specifies that this includes “the deployment of allied nuclear forces on German soil, participation in consultations, planning and providing means of delivery.”

This language was immediately and publicly rejected by the Social Democrats and, along with a subsequent position paper, made clear that for the first time that a governing party in Germany was calling for withdrawing from NATO nuclear sharing. The position paper, written by Social Democratic members of the Bundestag’s Defense Committee, categorically states that Social Democrats are “not willing to provide new means of delivery” once the Tornado has reached the end of its service life “in a few years.” Then, Germany’s participation in “tactical nuclear sharing” should end, the Social Democrats demand.

(it sucks...) full note here:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by EduardoDGC
(it sucks...)

Why please?

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:18 AM
offtopic: Oh plase forgive, I meant about forum not the situation about nukes, I was a little upset and dissapointed about 1. image limitation and 2. the text capacity for each post because it didn´t allowed me to copy the full text... but those are the rules anyway, modereators have surely their reasons.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in