Germany pays off WWI debt

It may seem incredible but Germany has only just finished paying off the war debt imposed on it after its defeat in the First World War. This week-end will see a final payment of €70m - from an original demand of 269bn gold marks (or 100,000 tonnes of gold).

Of course Germany has not continually paid reparations during the 89 years since the sum was fixed in 1921. The original sum of 269bn gold marks was later to reduced to 112bn by the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan during the 1920s. At various stages during the 1920s the Weimar government was not able to pay and during the 1930s Hitler was flat out not willing to pay - although the same was true of the Weimar government. In 1953 the London Treaty suspended payments until Germany was reunited, at which point a reduced amount of payments was reactivated.

John Maynard Keynes was among the many prominent voices criticising the Treaty of Versailles, arguing that it would not achieve its objectives and, needless to say, he was proved absolutely right. At least the Allies made a better fist of it twenty years later.

"After WWII they decided to hang the leaders and not to punish the nation but in WWI it was the other way around." ... "The lesson was learned eventually. Unfortunately, it required another 20 or so million people to be killed."

NB: It's a little strange that this story does not seem to have been reported very widely. Aside from the BBC, a cursory search via Google News reveals not much more than this report on (US) National Public Radio.

<div align="justify">It may seem incredible but Germany has only just finished paying off the war debt imposed on it after its defeat in the First World War. This week-end will see a final payment of €70m - from an original demand of 269bn gold marks (or 100,000 tonnes of gold).<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Of course Germany has not continually paid reparations during the 89 years since the sum was fixed in 1921. The original sum of 269bn gold marks was later to reduced to 112bn by the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan during the 1920s. At various stages during the 1920s the Weimar government was not able to pay and during the 1930s Hitler was flat out not willing to pay - although the same was true of the Weimar government. In 1953 the London Treaty suspended payments until Germany was reunited, at which point a reduced amount of payments was reactivated.<br /><br />John Maynard Keynes was among the many prominent voices criticising the Treaty of Versailles, arguing that it would not achieve its objectives and, needless to say, he was proved absolutely right. At least the Allies made a better fist of it twenty years later.<blockquote>"<em>After WWII they decided to hang the leaders and not to punish the nation but in WWI it was the other way around." ... "The lesson was learned eventually. Unfortunately, it required another 20 or so million people to be killed</em>."</blockquote><strong>NB:</strong> It's a little strange that this story does not seem to have been reported very widely. Aside from the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11442892">BBC</a>, a cursory search via Google News reveals not much more than <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130232809">this</a> report on (US) National Public Radio.<br /></div></span>

The fall-out from Kohlergate

Following Frederik's post last week on the comments made by the now former German President Horst Kohler, I'd like to highlight this article from the Wall Street Journal, Germany needs to grow up.

Horst Kohler resigned on Monday following the controversy stirred up by his comment on Germany's engagement in Afghanistan:

"A country of our size, with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests, for example, when it comes to trade routes, for example, when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes."

That statement is a fairly succinct summary of the reason's for the international community's engagement in Afghanistan. Moreover, the same reason applies to the international community's counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa (under NATO, EU and national flags). Do we send ships to the Gulf of Aden to help the people of Somalia or because 7% of the world's oil passes through those straits alone?

I think the basic message of the WSJ article - that Kohler was merely stating an obvious truth and a failure to understand that is a failure to understand the world we live in - is basically right, although perhaps the tone is unnecessarily caustic and greater empathy for the context of German history would have been appropriate. Moreover, the article misses the point that Frederik made in his post, that Kohler's comment has considerable legal implications in Germany.

However, if I were to internationalise this debate then I would have to challenge the assertion, made both by Frederik and the WSJ, that such a comment would have passed unnoticed in most other countries. It may well be true that only Germans could find Kohler's words incendiary but many other Europeans (especially those with a poor grasp of history) would find them at least controversial.

For example, Gordon Brown regularly linked the war in Afghanistan to the fight against terrorism, stating that the vast majority of terrorist plots uncovered in Britain were conceived or planned or organised in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions.

Barack Obama directly links the war in Afghanistan to the fight against al-Qaida. Although it was not the Obama administration that made that link and although Obama himself is probably too smart to really believe that, the fact remains that the war continues to be sold to the American public on that basis.

My point here is not to claim that the international community is engaged in Afghanistan under false pretences. My point is that, for some reason, publics seem to need more stark reasons for military engagement abroad than mere protection of trade and national interests through prevention of regional instabilities.

If an American politician or decision-maker made the same statement as Horst Kohler, what kind of reaction would he/she receive? Probably in America this kind of statement would - indeed does - go largely unnoticed, simply because it is relatively commonplace.

The real question is if a European (other than German) politician or decision-maker made the same statement as Horst Kohler, what kind of reaction would he/she receive?

While the German context is a unique one for obvious historical reasons, I think that its not only the Germans who need to accept certain realities. I think the same applies to many Europeans, albeit to varying degrees depending on nationality, demography or even political allegiance.

The simple fact is that Kohler spoke the truth and a perfectly valid truth at that. The sooner Europe accepts this and bases foreign and security policy around it, the more effective Europe will be on the world stage.

<div align="justify">Following Frederik's post last week on the comments made by the now former German President Horst Kohler, I'd like to highlight this article from the Wall Street Journal, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282502102290766.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines">Germany needs to grow up</a>.<br /><br />Horst Kohler resigned on Monday following the controversy stirred up by his comment on Germany's engagement in Afghanistan:<br /><br /><em>"A country of our size, with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests, for example, when it comes to trade routes, for example, when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes."</em><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />That statement is a fairly succinct summary of the reason's for the international community's engagement in Afghanistan. Moreover, the same reason applies to the international community's counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa (under NATO, EU and national flags). Do we send ships to the Gulf of Aden to help the people of Somalia or because 7% of the world's oil passes through those straits alone?<br /><br />I think the basic message of the WSJ article - that Kohler was merely stating an obvious truth and a failure to understand that is a failure to understand the world we live in - is basically right, although perhaps the tone is unnecessarily caustic and greater empathy for the context of German history would have been appropriate. Moreover, the article misses the point that Frederik made in his post, that Kohler's comment has considerable legal implications in Germany.<br /><br />However, if I were to internationalise this debate then I would have to challenge the assertion, made both by Frederik and the WSJ, that such a comment would have passed unnoticed in most other countries. It may well be true that only Germans could find Kohler's words incendiary but many other Europeans (especially those with a poor grasp of history) would find them at least controversial.<br /><br />For example, Gordon Brown regularly <a href="http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2009/september-2009/afghanistan-pakistan-hubs-of-terror-planning-brown/">linked</a> the war in Afghanistan to the fight against terrorism, stating that the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/27/gordon-brown-afghanistan-pakistan-terrorism">vast majority</a> of terrorist plots uncovered in Britain were conceived or planned or organised in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions.<br /><br />Barack Obama directly <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-president-obamas-speech-afghanistan-delivered-west/story?id=9220661">links</a> the war in Afghanistan to the fight against al-Qaida. Although it was not the Obama administration that made that link and although Obama himself is probably too smart to really believe that, the fact remains that the war continues to be sold to the American public on that basis.<br /><br />My point here is not to claim that the international community is engaged in Afghanistan under false pretences. My point is that, for some reason, publics seem to need more stark reasons for military engagement abroad than mere protection of trade and national interests through prevention of regional instabilities.<br /><br />If an American politician or decision-maker made the same statement as Horst Kohler, what kind of reaction would he/she receive? Probably in America this kind of statement would - indeed does - go largely unnoticed, simply because it is relatively commonplace.<br /><br />The real question is if a European (other than German) politician or decision-maker made the same statement as Horst Kohler, what kind of reaction would he/she receive?<br /><br />While the German context is a unique one for obvious historical reasons, I think that its not only the Germans who need to accept certain realities. I think the same applies to many Europeans, albeit to varying degrees depending on nationality, demography or even political allegiance.<br /><br />The simple fact is that Kohler spoke the truth and a perfectly valid truth at that. The sooner Europe accepts this and bases foreign and security policy around it, the more effective Europe will be on the world stage.<br /></span></div><em></em>

Current developments in German defence policy I

The last couple of days, some interesting developments took place in the German defence policy. To begin with, the German president, Horst Kohler, said in an interview that the German participation at ISAF is also due to economic and trade reasons.

In an interview with a German radio station, Kohler made a statement that stirred up the political establishment. He said:

"I guess that we are making good progress to understand that a country such as ours with its export driven economy and, therefore, dependency on exports has in emergency situations to rely on military force to protect its interests, for instance trading routes or prevention of regional instabilities that could have a negative impact on trade, employment or income."

This statement that would hardly even be noticed in other countries, opened a Pandora's box in Germany. Most of the German politicians claim that we are in Afghanistan to bring peace and stability. In her speech to the parliament, Chancellor Angela Merkel stated the fact that Afghan children can return to school as a first reason for our engagement.

Stating that national economic interest is also a reason for the deployment of the BUNDESWEHR, poses two major problems: first, we Germans don't this kind of stuff. We Germans want to help others and altruism is our primary motivation. Taking of national interest always has a taste of something that we thought we left behind 65 years ago. The reasons for our engagement vary from enabling Afghan children going to school to solidarity with the NATO alliance. The economy as a reason has never been mentioned before by any prominent politician.

Second, there is a legal problem with this statement: according to the German constitution, the armed forces cannot be deployed for economic reasons. Also, the mandate of the German parliament for the participation at ISAF does not cover for economic interests, but only security reasons.

The German president has only representative functions. He is nominated by the parties and elected by the federal assembly, a body where the parliament and representatives of the local governments are represented. He has no political power. However, he can influence the political discourse with speeches, as he did with this latest interview.

NB: For the first time, a German warship has been integrated into a US Carrier Strike Group (CSG). The Frigate HESSEN is currently part of the HARRY S. TRUMAN CSG, which is on its way to the waters off the coast of Iran. The German government did not release any statement concerning the reasons for this deployment, yet.

The last couple of days, some interesting developments took place in the German defence policy. To begin with, the German president, Horst Kohler, said in an interview that the German participation at ISAF is also due to economic and trade reasons.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />In an interview with a German radio station, Kohler made a statement that stirred up the political establishment. He said:<br /><blockquote>"I guess that we are making good progress to understand that a country such as ours with its export driven economy and, therefore, dependency on exports has in emergency situations to rely on military force to protect its interests, for instance trading routes or prevention of regional instabilities that could have a negative impact on trade, employment or income."</blockquote><br />This statement that would hardly even be noticed in other countries, opened a Pandora's box in Germany. Most of the German politicians claim that we are in Afghanistan to bring peace and stability. In her speech to the parliament, Chancellor Angela Merkel stated the fact that Afghan children can return to school as a first reason for our engagement.<br /><br />Stating that national economic interest is also a reason for the deployment of the BUNDESWEHR, poses two major problems: first, we Germans don't this kind of stuff. We Germans want to help others and altruism is our primary motivation. Taking of national interest always has a taste of something that we thought we left behind 65 years ago. The reasons for our engagement vary from enabling Afghan children going to school to solidarity with the NATO alliance. The economy as a reason has never been mentioned before by any prominent politician.<br /><br />Second, there is a legal problem with this statement: according to the German constitution, the armed forces cannot be deployed for economic reasons. Also, the mandate of the German parliament for the participation at ISAF does not cover for economic interests, but only security reasons.<br /><br />The German president has only representative functions. He is nominated by the parties and elected by the federal assembly, a body where the parliament and representatives of the local governments are represented. He has no political power. However, he can influence the political discourse with speeches, as he did with this latest interview.<br /><br />NB: For the first time, a German warship has been integrated into a US Carrier Strike Group (CSG). The Frigate HESSEN is currently part of the HARRY S. TRUMAN CSG, which is on its way to the waters off the coast of Iran. The German government did not release any statement concerning the reasons for this deployment, yet.<br /></span>

The ongoing Debate in Germany

On Friday, three German soldiers have been killed and 7 wounded in a day of intense fighting with insurgents 40 km south of Kunduz. Here is an account of what we know so far about the events:

At 13.04, a patrol of the 1st Company, 373 Airborne Battalion, stopped to clear the road of IEDs in the Chahar Darreh district. It turned out to be an ambush by 30 to 40 insurgents (Al Jazeera spoke of 200) who opened fire. Until the end of the fighting at about 1700, seven German soldiers were wounded.



At 14.50, the reinforcements sent from the camp in Kunduz suffer an IED attack that leaves four soldiers wounded. During the ensuing gunfight, US helicopters evacuated the wounded. It was reported that one of the dismounting soldiers triggered the IED and the others were wounded during the dismounting operation.

At 15.35, the insurgents launch an attack on the police station of Chaher Darreh, which lasts until 1640. No German troop involvement in this fighting.

The 2nd Company, 372 Airborne Battalion, reinforced by 'Marder' Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), is sent to replace the 1st Company. On the way, a unmarked car approached the convoy. After the car failed to stop and warning shots were fired, one 'Marder' engages the car with its 20 mm cannon and kills all five or six (?) passengers. As it turns out, the men in civil were Afghan National Army soldiers.

By chance an army camera team was present during the fighting. Here is the clip.

In Germany, the war in Afghanistan is very unpopular. According to the latest poll, 70% of the Germans oppose the war. After such a bloody day, politicians, pundits and ex-officers rush to comment on what is wrong and how the situation for the troops could be improved. The government declares unisono that the mission in Afghanistan is crucial to German interests and that Germany will not pull out any time soon. In fact, there is no political party that demands an immediate withdrawal. See an earlier post of mine on this issue.

The criticism is mainly about the lack of 'Dingo' Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) for training purposes in Germany. This issue came up because it was reported that three casualties were wounded during the dismounting, which could not sufficiently be trained during the pre-deployment training in Germany. With my personal experience I would argue that dismounting of any vehicle is pretty similar, provided that the hatches are at the same side. Of course it is a problem that the army doesn't have the funds to 'train as you fight', but I doubt that the casualties would have been avoided if the 'Dingos' were available in Germany.

The incoming Wehrbeauftragter des Deutschen Bundestages, something like the rapporteur of the armed forces to the German Parliament, asked for 'Leopard' Main Battle Tanks (MBT) to be deployed. His reasoning is that the big gun would scare off insurgents and provide better force-protection. Well, this demand has been rejected by the armed forces and I totally agree. MBTs are not suited to fight an insurgency and their vulnerability against IEDs can thoroughly be studied on youtube.

However, I agree with the need for combat helicopters. Currently, the Germans only have some eight transport helicopters in Afghanistan and, therefore, rely entirely on US close air support. However, after the recent incident that left between 40 and 120 Afghans killed when to trucks were bombed, the German officers shy off from requesting air support. The fear of ending up in jail back in Germany would probably hinder ground troops to call for gunships and hinder gunship pilots of engaging targets on the ground. This dilemma calls for a solution. I will address it in a future post.

There is also a shortage of drones and other surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as the former Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr, something like the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, pointed out. He also said that the politicians in Germany have no clue about the conditions the army operates in. I think that this statement is pretty undisputed.

On Friday, three German soldiers have been killed and 7 wounded in a day of intense fighting with insurgents 40 km south of Kunduz. Here is an account of what we know so far about the events:<br /><br />At 13.04, a patrol of the 1st Company, 373 Airborne Battalion, stopped to clear the road of IEDs in the Chahar Darreh district. It turned out to be an ambush by 30 to 40 insurgents (Al Jazeera spoke of 200) who opened fire. Until the end of the fighting at about 1700, seven German soldiers were wounded.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />At 14.50, the reinforcements sent from the camp in Kunduz suffer an IED attack that leaves four soldiers wounded. During the ensuing gunfight, US helicopters evacuated the wounded. It was reported that one of the dismounting soldiers triggered the IED and the others were wounded during the dismounting operation.<br /><br />At 15.35, the insurgents launch an attack on the police station of Chaher Darreh, which lasts until 1640. No German troop involvement in this fighting.<br /><br />The 2nd Company, 372 Airborne Battalion, reinforced by 'Marder' Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), is sent to replace the 1st Company. On the way, a unmarked car approached the convoy. After the car failed to stop and warning shots were fired, one 'Marder' engages the car with its 20 mm cannon and kills all five or six (?) passengers. As it turns out, the men in civil were Afghan National Army soldiers.<br /><br />By chance an army camera team was present during the fighting. Here is the <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c90_1270037293">clip</a>.<br /><br />In Germany, the war in Afghanistan is very unpopular. According to the latest poll, 70% of the Germans oppose the war. After such a bloody day, politicians, pundits and ex-officers rush to comment on what is wrong and how the situation for the troops could be improved. The government declares unisono that the mission in Afghanistan is crucial to German interests and that Germany will not pull out any time soon. In fact, there is no political party that demands an immediate withdrawal. See an earlier post of mine on this issue.<br /><br />The criticism is mainly about the lack of 'Dingo' Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) for training purposes in Germany. This issue came up because it was reported that three casualties were wounded during the dismounting, which could not sufficiently be trained during the pre-deployment training in Germany. With my personal experience I would argue that dismounting of any vehicle is pretty similar, provided that the hatches are at the same side. Of course it is a problem that the army doesn't have the funds to 'train as you fight', but I doubt that the casualties would have been avoided if the 'Dingos' were available in Germany.<br /><br />The incoming <span style="font-style: italic;">Wehrbeauftragter des Deutschen Bundestages</span>, something like the rapporteur of the armed forces to the German Parliament, asked for 'Leopard' Main Battle Tanks (MBT) to be deployed. His reasoning is that the big gun would scare off insurgents and provide better force-protection. Well, this demand has been rejected by the armed forces and I totally agree. MBTs are not suited to fight an insurgency and their vulnerability against IEDs can thoroughly be studied on youtube.<br /><br />However, I agree with the need for combat helicopters. Currently, the Germans only have some eight transport helicopters in Afghanistan and, therefore, rely entirely on US close air support. However, after the recent incident that left between 40 and 120 Afghans killed when to trucks were bombed, the German officers shy off from requesting air support. The fear of ending up in jail back in Germany would probably hinder ground troops to call for gunships and hinder gunship pilots of engaging targets on the ground. This dilemma calls for a solution. I will address it in a future post.<br /><br />There is also a shortage of drones and other surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as the former <span style="font-style: italic;">Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr</span>, something like the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, pointed out. He also said that the politicians in Germany have no clue about the conditions the army operates in. I think that this statement is pretty undisputed.<br /></span>

Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough

Since I'm quite busy writing an article for a German magazine, I'll post a link to a document that I haven't read, yet, but surely will as soon as I find time. The CIA document was leaked to WikiLeaks and outlines possible strategies to shore up support for the Afghanistan mission in Germany and France, the third and fourth largest troop contributors.

Since I'm quite busy writing an article for a German magazine, I'll post a link to a document that I haven't read, yet, but surely will as soon as I find time. The <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">CIA document</a> was leaked to WikiLeaks and outlines possible strategies to shore up support for the Afghanistan mission in Germany and France, the third and fourth largest troop contributors.