the comeback of german militarism

[darmstadt]

Yeah, but! Oh Dear!

Two soldiers were brought in for questioning after a newspaper published photographs of German troops posing with a human skull while on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. Germany now fears reprisals against its troops.



Photographs purporting to show German soldiers desecrating a human skill in Afghanistan, splashed on the front page of the country's mass-selling Bild newspaper on Wednesday, provoked shock and disgust in Germany.

"Such behaviour is absolutely inexcusable," Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "The government will investigate the soldiers involved and take rigorous measures against them," Merkel said.

Meanwhile, politicans have voiced fears of retaliatory attacks by Islamists against German peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

"I hope that such incidents don't happen again and the safety of our soldiers is not at risk," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told German broadcaster ARD.

The chairman of the German Armed Forces Union, Bernhard Gertz said that there was a growing danger of attacks after the revelation of the shock photos. "The commanders (in Afghanistan) will have to consider what reactions they will have to deal with," Gertz said in a television interview.




The Bild newspaper wrote that a member of the German Armed Forces claimed that the pictures showed German peacekeepers of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) unit near the capital Kabul in early 2003.



"Their irresponsible and inexcusable behaviour damages the reputation of the Bundeswehr and our country," said Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.



The general inspector of the Bundeswehr, Wolfgang Schneiderhan, said that one of the two soldiers who were brought in for questioning was still on active duty, while the other one is no longer in the army.



According to a report in the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, the two men belonged to the same mountain troops unit from the southern German state of Bavaria.

The state prosecuter's office in Potsdam, outside Berlin, confirmed that it had launched a criminal investigation into the affair on charges of "disturbing the peace of the dead."



"Runs counter to our values"



In the published photos, the uniformed men are seen holding up the skull and posing with it on a jeep like scalp hunters. In another picture, a solider is seen exposing himself while holding the skull in his other hand.



"These pictures revolt and mystify me," Defense Minister Jung said. "It is clear that such behavior cannot be tolerated from German soldiers. It runs counter to the values and codes of conduct we try to instill in our soldiers. People who behave like this have no place in the Bundeswehr."



Bild's front page screamed: "Shock Photos of German Soldiers" and inside "German Soldiers Desecrate a Dead Person."



The newspaper said it was unclear where the skull came from, or whether it belonged to an Afghan or dated back to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. It may also have been found in an alleged "mass grave,"



As yet, Bild is the only confirmed source for the allegations.the paper wrote.



Mandate extended



The scandal broke just hours before the German cabinet decided to extend the mandate of its troops taking part in the US-led campaign against terrorism code-named "Operation Enduring Freedom" by one year.



The extension gives Berlin the option of redeploying its KSK elite forces in Afghanistan to help fight the resurgent Taliban.

It also coincided with the release of the defence ministry's first major policy manifesto since 1994, which Jung said paved the ground for Germany's readiness to take on more international peacekeeping missions.

Germany is the second biggest contributor of peacekeepers to Afghanistan with 2,750 troops and holds the command of ISAF in the north.

The Bundestag, or lower house of the German parliament, voted last month to extend their mandate in Afghanistan until October 2007.

[hattra]

Operation Sea Lion required achieving air superiority, in which case Stukas would have provided good enough cover, not sure British Navy could have possible being defeated, but if Luftwaffe achieved air superiority then I suppose they could have kept Navy away from transports.

The result would not be certain by any means, but Germans have won battles in much worse conditions later in the war.

Not just achieving air superiority, but maintaining it - they had a major supply-route problem (i.e the Channel) that was always going to be vulnerable to counter-attack - all it would have taken was a bad winter (to ground the Luftwaffe) and a determined counter-attack by the RN and several hundred thousand very hungry German stormtroopers would very soon have braved even the horror that was a British Army ration pack (served piping hot inside a British POW camp, of course), similar to the problems they encountered in the Russian campaign, but with less snow, and even more difficult transport problems.

And don't forget, the British had about 1.5 million men under arms - and the more men the Germans brought across, the worse their supply problems became - regardless of the respective fighting qualities of the two armies, it was always going to be logistics that governed the outcome (and which the Americans, in particular, mastered - they invented linear programmimg just to solve the problems involved)

[AtW]

Not just achieving air superiority, but maintaining it

Yes of course - just achieving it makes no point if you can't hold it.

I think they had good chances if they attacked pretty much immediately after Dunkirk - channel is not that wide, so with close cover from Stukas bridgeheads can be held long enough for tanks to be unloaded and then it may all end pretty quickly since this country has not got big territory.

I would not say the Germans would have won for sure - but I think it was their best chance to win the war - perhaps after successful landing they could have held enough ground to make peace deal, though I don't think that surrender is typical character train for British people.

If Hitler did not let BEF get away from Dunkirk then quick invasion afterwards would have most certainly be successful. Well, my panzers did not make this mistake

[hattra]

[b] Germany is the second biggest contributor of peacekeepers to Afghanistan with 2,750 troops and holds the command of ISAF in the north.

Errr. 10,000 US troops, 5000 UK troops, 4000 Canadians - arithmetic isn't their strong point, is it!

[AtW]

Errr. 10,000 US troops

US troops were moved to Iraq - I hear Osama bin Laden hides there. Apparently.

[hattra]

If Hitler did not let BEF get away from Dunkirk then quick invasion afterwards would have most certainly be successful.

Ah well, my Uncle Harry didn't die in vain then

[AtW]

Don't want to insult your uncle, but BEF was evacuated only because Hitler stopped army for reasons that have never been made 100% clear - it is not the resistance (which I have no doubts was very brave) that stopped them.

My relatives died in war too - mother's uncle died few days before end of war

[hattra]

Killed just before it finished - that's a shame.

I think the German failure to push home their advantage was probably
because Hitler wanted to give the British time to sue for peace (after all, the British Government was all for surrendering & running off to Canada at the time - it was only the King's refusal to go that put some backbone into them). It is also possible that he wanted to save his ground troops and let Goering's Luftwaffe destroy the BEF from the air (something that the Americans keep on trying, to this day). The armour only actually stopped for two days (May 24th to the 26th - the day the evacuation started) If they had pushed on, we would still have got quite a lot off the beaches. The rearguard actually did quite a good job & held the Germans until June 3rd, though they were seriously outgunned, they were a professional force and reasonably capable (my uncle completed 8 years in the Indian Army before being called up in 1938, as a Class A reservist). If we'd lost the last two days from the evacuation, we'd have got about 85000 fewer troopps out (all French BTW), which would still have meant about 250,000 British troops would have escaped (out of 330,000 in the BEF).

[AtW]

If Guderian had his way he'd probably cut off troops from Dunkirk altogether, all in all Hitler certainly missed out on big chance to finish the war - if he prevented BEF from evacuating, and then bluff by threatening to land ashore, then he may have gained peace accord same year. Perhaps not for a long time, but enough to start Ost front campaign in May with more troops and air support, this could have just been enough time to take Moscow and Leningrad.

I think America was not yet involved in the war, so he could have attained very strong position indeed, luckily he did not.

[sasguru]

If Guderian had his way he'd probably cut off troops from Dunkirk altogether, all in all Hitler certainly missed out on big chance to finish the war - if he prevented BEF from evacuating, and then bluff by threatening to land ashore, then he may have gained peace accord same year. Perhaps not for a long time, but enough to start Ost front campaign in May with more troops and air support, this could have just been enough time to take Moscow and Leningrad.

I think America was not yet involved in the war, so he could have attained very strong position indeed, luckily he did not.

In my mind there is no doubt that Germany could have conquered Britain right after Dunkirk, albeit with heavy losses. Time has converted it into, if not a victory, then a heroic withdrawal. But having talked to people who were there, I think that that the morale of the BEF was not high. History tells us a lesson: never over estimate the strength of your army. Look at the facts with a cold, dispassionate eye.