this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
25 points (87.9% liked)

Europe

11070 readers
379 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

there are still 30.000-35.000 US soldiers in germany.

But why?

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ignoring the rhetoricity of the question: The military occupation of Germany after WW2 lasting for 45 years (1945-1990/1991) resulted in a lot NATO-standard military infrastructure being already established throughout the country; So when the occupation officially ended the US essentially just figured "why not rent already existing bases instead of building new ones elsewhere".

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is incorrect. Occupation ended in West-Germany in 1955, when the Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO - and it had already been gradually reduced from 1949, when more and more powers were transferred to the German government. Sovereignty was officially granted to the young democracy that year in both foreign and domestic matters, but there were a number of exceptions: The right to station troops (as part of NATO) and to deploy them in Germany in case there was an invasion from the East, even without explicit consent from the West-German government, as well as the right to restore order in case of national unrest, in case it endangered the stationed troops (but this came with the caveat that the German parliament could override this).

This doesn't mean that America (as well as other Western allies like Britain and France) didn't exert a great amount of influence on the young republic, but even under Adenauer already, it was able to forge its own foreign and domestic path and did so often against the wishes of what the West wanted, exhibited sovereignty far more quickly than many (more so in France and Britain than the US, for obvious reasons) were comfortable with this shortly after the end of WW2.

The situation was fundamentally different in East Germany, which remained under strict control of the Soviet Union. This ranged from the relationship between occupying soldiers with civilians to the way even major internal decision making within the ruling party had to get signed off by Moscow. Russian soldiers stationed in Germany were not just there to possibly attack NATO (it was never a defensive force - their doctrine was all about offensive, contrary to NATO), but also to maintain Communist rule in case of a revolution (see e.g. the 1953 workers' uprising in East Germany, the Hungarian revolution, the Prague Spring, etc.). There's a reason the reunited Germany went to great lengths to get rid of these troops as quickly as it could, even paying Russia handsomely to bring them home. When Russian barracks were inspected after the soldiers had left, they were found to having been in an absolutely desolate state.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US didn't just flippantly "figured something out", but instead dramatically downsized its deployment, but kept it active as both a logistics center (same as Britain, which by now have left the country) and as a deterrent against Russia, which despite a thawing of relations with the West still had nukes and conventional troops pointed West. While "Ami go home" was a popular sentiment particularly among the Left and especially when tensions heated up again in the early '80s due to Reagan heating up the arms race with the Soviet Union again (which would ultimately be a major contributor to its downfall, as the mismanaged economy had no chance of keeping up with the West), most people understood that American soldiers on German soil were there to protect them against the Soviets and later Russia, not an occupying force anymore.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is incorrect. Occupation ended in West-Germany in 1955, [...] exceptions: The right to station troops [...] even without explicit consent from the West-German government

Lol, the occupation ended, except it didn't end. Yeah ok. The actual end of the Allied Control Council was in 1990/1991, following the two+four treaty and reunification. That's when the US (and others) lost rights to station troops in Germany at their discretion and Germany was granted full sovereignty. And until then there had been occupation troops there, doesn't matter that they had been much reduced compared to the first ten years.

the US didn’t just flippantly “figured something out”

I didn't say figuring out, I said figuring. Presented with two choices, close everything down or pay rent, they chose the latter.

but kept it active as both a logistics center [...] and as a deterrent against Russia

Which was all I said, so we agree essentially: “why not rent already existing bases instead of building new ones elsewhere”

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's a reason I contrasted the West-German with the East-German situation. One was clearly an occupation, the other was a lot more nuanced. Perhaps I should have elaborated on just how independent the West-German government was in its decision making even before 1955. This kind of behavior simply isn't possible under anything that can be described as an occupation.

I didn’t say figuring out, I said figuring. Presented with two choices, close everything down or pay rent, they chose the latter.

Alright, fair enough.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

This kind of behavior simply isn’t possible under anything that can be described as an occupation.

Well if its still a de jure occupation, by virtue of other countries having rights over the subject country, I think that alone already makes it fair to still call it an occupation. If the occupying powers furthermore do in fact still have active military deployments in the country I am beginning to wonder how you could not call it a military occupation.

[–] kebab@piefed.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

to protect us of course. havent found out from whom yet, but i feel really protected right now.

[–] DdCno1@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

Before Trump, it was pretty obviously meant to protect against Russia as well as part of Germany's integration into NATO - and the majority of Germans were more than fine with it.