Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart Quote - Page 4




 
--
 
November 6th, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Konrad Adenauer was a pragmatic politician and was more interested in getting West Germany integrated into the European Coal and Steel Community and the West European Union. Adenauer really wanted to get the British into the ECSC and the WEU, nukes would have made all of it impossible. Adenauer was one of the German politicians building up West Germany from the ruins of the Second World War to be a very economically successful country, so after the war, they were and still are buying things instead of using military force.

There were concerns if the French nuclear weapon program could provoke West Germany or even cooperate with the French to get nukes. The French excluded the Germans and the Italians in their own weapon program. The US would have reacted differently to if they got indication of a German nuclear weapon program. They might have left Europe and it had been the end of NATO.

The bottom line is; it wasn't worth it for the Germans to get nukes. West Germany and later the reunified Germany is now integrated in the world community. Germany doesn't need nukes when they are under NATO's nuclear umbrella

We need to address how NATO perceive the nukes. NATO has always viewed them as a political tool as a deterrence. The nuclear powers don't give nuclear weapons to others, they keep them to themselves. Nukes aren't like tanks, aircrafts, ships, howitzers etc.
November 6th, 2020  
lljadw
 
There was a lot of distrust and hostility between Adenauer and Kennedy . For Kennedy Adenauer was a relic of the Cold War .A Kalte Krieger .
Source : Adenauer and Kennedy:An Era of distrust in German-American Relations .
And, it is a fact that Adenauer and Strauss wanted nuclear weapons for the Bundeswehr .
November 6th, 2020  
lljadw
 
While Eisenhower had no objections to a German nuclear weapons program, Kennedy told the British Secretary of Defense (Thorneycroft ) that a German nuclear weapons program would force US to leave Europe .
For Adenauer OTOH,in a world where only US and the USSR possessed nuclear weapons,Europe would no longer possess the ability to decide its own fate .
De Gaulle could have said the same .
--
November 6th, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
There was a lot of distrust and hostility between Adenauer and Kennedy . For Kennedy Adenauer was a relic of the Cold War .A Kalte Krieger .
Source : Adenauer and Kennedy:An Era of distrust in German-American Relations .
And, it is a fact that Adenauer and Strauss wanted nuclear weapons for the Bundeswehr .
So why didn't West Germany get any? Because West Germany realized it wasn't worth it. They would suffer politically and economically if they walked down that path. Maybe even risk the existence of their own country. No other country had defended them if the Soviets had attacked them. Adenauer was an anti-communist, the price of getting nukes would increase the risk of letting his own country to be another communist country. Adenauer wanted to integrate West germany to other West European countries and to rebuild West Germany's reputation. The West German/German governments have in the post war world been successful with it.

So we can conclude, the dual German states used former wehrmacht officers to build up the dual German armed forces, despite you saying that wasn't the case. You claimed the NATO countries didn't signed the NPT, which they did. Even the WP countries signed it. You seem to view nukes as any other weapons, but they aren't.
November 6th, 2020  
lljadw
 
What you or I think about nuclear weapons is irrelevant .
The facts are
1 That in 1960 Nato would lose a conventional war against the USSR (it had only 20 divisions ).
2 To prevent this, there was the American nuclear umbrella , but this umbrella had become worthless when the Soviets launched the Sputnik and could thus nuke the US if these would nuke the Soviet Union if it attacked Nato with conventional forces .
3 Nato had also plans to not nuke the USSR ,but to use its nuclear weapons against the Soviet forces that would invade West Germany, what would mean the end of Germany .
4 What Adenauer and Strauss wanted were nuclear weapons for West Germany that could destroy the USSR and thus prevent a conventional Soviet attack .
5 What they also wanted (and De Gaulle also ) was to become more independent from the US ( a lot of people considered Nato members as US satellites ).
6 Strauss was for the US more dangerous than Adenauer who was already 84 in 1960 ,especially if Strauss became German PM .
7 It was also public knowledge in Germany that Gehlen and his BND were arch enemies of Strauss (the chief of the BND in Hamburg was an informer of Der Spiegel,which every week attacked Strauss very harshly .
8 In 1960 most of the WM generals who had served in the Bundeswehr had retired ,they were older than 60 .Heusinger and Speidel were exceptions, besides Speidel had only a very minor role during the war and his career after the war was determined by the fact that he had been during a short time,chief of staff of Rommel,who in 1960 was venerated in Germany as a Saint,the good German and brilliant general .
November 7th, 2020  
BritinBritain
 
 
Winston Churchill once said

""A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."".
November 7th, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
What you or I think about nuclear weapons is irrelevant .
The facts are
1 That in 1960 Nato would lose a conventional war against the USSR (it had only 20 divisions ).
2 To prevent this, there was the American nuclear umbrella , but this umbrella had become worthless when the Soviets launched the Sputnik and could thus nuke the US if these would nuke the Soviet Union if it attacked Nato with conventional forces .
3 Nato had also plans to not nuke the USSR ,but to use its nuclear weapons against the Soviet forces that would invade West Germany, what would mean the end of Germany .
4 What Adenauer and Strauss wanted were nuclear weapons for West Germany that could destroy the USSR and thus prevent a conventional Soviet attack .
5 What they also wanted (and De Gaulle also ) was to become more independent from the US ( a lot of people considered Nato members as US satellites ).
6 Strauss was for the US more dangerous than Adenauer who was already 84 in 1960 ,especially if Strauss became German PM .
7 It was also public knowledge in Germany that Gehlen and his BND were arch enemies of Strauss (the chief of the BND in Hamburg was an informer of Der Spiegel,which every week attacked Strauss very harshly .
8 In 1960 most of the WM generals who had served in the Bundeswehr had retired ,they were older than 60 .Heusinger and Speidel were exceptions, besides Speidel had only a very minor role during the war and his career after the war was determined by the fact that he had been during a short time,chief of staff of Rommel,who in 1960 was venerated in Germany as a Saint,the good German and brilliant general .
You don't understand nuclear weapons aren't like conventional weapons, if you did you shouldn't have questioned why army group commanders in NATO don't have access to them. American nukes are under American control, British nukes are under British control, the French nukes are under French control. They don't "give" them to officers from other NATO countries

NATO should have lost a conventional war throughout the entire cold war because NATO implemented what they called the Forward Defense. It means all conventional NATO forces were close as possible to the inner German border and most likely it hadn't work if the WP attacked NATO. The nukes had and still have the purpose to deter WP during the cold war and later anybody else to attack a NATO country (Article 5) The nuclear umbrella still exist and it is part of the Atlantic Treaty. Your own country is part of that treaty so you should know about it, but you don't.

NATO's nuclear doctrine during the cold war was to prevent the Soviet second echelon, based in the western part of Soviet Union to participate in the attack on NATO. The American and the British nukes could have reached Soviet Union. The US had nukes in Turkey, they were removed after the Cuban missile crisis as a part of the deal between the US and the Soviet Union.
November 7th, 2020  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Winston Churchill once said

""A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."".
Mark Twain said; "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
November 8th, 2020  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
You don't understand nuclear weapons aren't like conventional weapons, if you did you shouldn't have questioned why army group commanders in NATO don't have access to them. American nukes are under American control, British nukes are under British control, the French nukes are under French control. They don't "give" them to officers from other NATO countries

NATO should have lost a conventional war throughout the entire cold war because NATO implemented what they called the Forward Defense. It means all conventional NATO forces were close as possible to the inner German border and most likely it hadn't work if the WP attacked NATO. The nukes had and still have the purpose to deter WP during the cold war and later anybody else to attack a NATO country (Article 5) The nuclear umbrella still exist and it is part of the Atlantic Treaty. Your own country is part of that treaty so you should know about it, but you don't.

NATO's nuclear doctrine during the cold war was to prevent the Soviet second echelon, based in the western part of Soviet Union to participate in the attack on NATO. The American and the British nukes could have reached Soviet Union. The US had nukes in Turkey, they were removed after the Cuban missile crisis as a part of the deal between the US and the Soviet Union.
Again, what you think about nuclear weapons is irrelevant .
Nato strategy was ,till 1960,if they would lose a conventional war, and even,if they did not, to fight a nuclear war in Europe that would destroy Germany .
The nuclear umbrella became bluff in 1957 .
And,after the election of Kennedy, the leaders of West Germany no longer trusted the US and wanted their own nuclear umbrella .The protagonists of this policy were eliminated in the Spiegel Affair,where the BND ,who worked closely with the CIA,worked together with Der Spiegel against Adenauer and Strauss.
Given the countless interventions from the CIA in enemy, neutral and allied countries before and after the Spiegel Affair,it is obvious that Washington ordered to eliminate these two dangerous Germans .
It was all bad enough for Washington that France was making its own nuclear weapons and ceased to be a willing satellite,Germany with nuclear weapons would result the end of Nato and US withdrawal from Europe .
November 8th, 2020  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
You don't understand nuclear weapons aren't like conventional weapons, if you did you shouldn't have questioned why army group commanders in NATO don't have access to them. American nukes are under American control, British nukes are under British control, the French nukes are under French control. They don't "give" them to officers from other NATO countries

NATO should have lost a conventional war throughout the entire cold war because NATO implemented what they called the Forward Defense. It means all conventional NATO forces were close as possible to the inner German border and most likely it hadn't work if the WP attacked NATO. The nukes had and still have the purpose to deter WP during the cold war and later anybody else to attack a NATO country (Article 5) The nuclear umbrella still exist and it is part of the Atlantic Treaty. Your own country is part of that treaty so you should know about it, but you don't.
The nuclear umbrella ceased to exist in 1957 ,when the Soviets could reply by nuking American cities .Thus, why should US nuke Moscow if the Soviets started a conventional war in Europe ? The Soviets would nuke Detroit, Chicago, DC ,....
 


Similar Topics
Sir? SIR!
SIR