Once were warriors

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on June 10th, 2017 at 06:12 am

Sheesh. Germany loses a couple of wars, and all of a sudden they don’t want to play any more:

Adults in France were more likely to think Iran posed a nuclear threat (34 per cent) than in Germany (30 per cent) and Britain (27 per cent.)

Of those adults surveyed who did believe Iran posed a nuclear threat, 59 per cent said diplomacy was the best way to handle the situation.

Just three per cent said using military force alone was the best course of action. Support for military action was highest in Britain (seven percent) and lowest in Germany (zero percent.)

If nothing else, I guess this disproves the line that a warlike people will only be inflamed by armed response.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/31/2005 at 09:49 AM
    1. I don’t think that Germans are a warlike people anymore. You should really give Air Marshall Harris a little credit for achieving his goal of “Instilling Germans with a deep and permanent sense of pacifism”.

      PS: Those weren’t his exact words but he did say something along those lines.

      Posted by AussieJim on 03/31 at 10:22 AM • permalink


    1. That’s just because the French have more American DNA than the Germans do.  German war brides were smart enough to come to America.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 03/31 at 10:23 AM • permalink


    1. The 0% spupport for military action in Iran is in keeping with German historical character.

      It’s not simply that they used to be warlike and now are peacelike. Rather, they used to be extreme and still are, they’re simply extreme the other way at the moment.

      Don’t get too comfortable in thinking the pendulum won’t swing back. There’s no reason think their basic national character has changed.

      Posted by byrd on 03/31 at 10:53 AM • permalink


    1. Poles like these make me doubt my capacities: why am I not richer than Bill Gates, or maybe the next Hitler, after Bush retires? But there’s still time!

      Posted by J. Peden on 03/31 at 11:37 AM • permalink


    1. Don’t forget the Russians gave Germany that Prussia-ectomy in 1945. Goobye, Prussian militarism.

      Posted by Dave S. on 03/31 at 01:02 PM • permalink


    1. There is something to be said for the Germans being a nation of panty waist pacifists.  It’s better having them whining (or as the Aussie call it, “whinging”) about our use of the military elsewhere than having to use the military on them.

      Posted by wronwright on 03/31 at 02:47 PM • permalink


    1. Tempting, but not fair.

      “Just three per cent said using military force alone was the best course of action. Support for military action was highest in Britain (seven percent) and lowest in Germany (zero percent.)

      An additional 22 percent across all countries supported the combined approach of using both diplomacy and military force.”

      It doesn’t surprise me to find support for miltiary action without any attempt at diplomacy scores pretty low.

      Hell, I’m a giant hawk, and I think we ought to try and make the point with sharply dressed professionals threatening a big badda-boom before we send in the big badda-boom.

      (“A diplomat is someone who is never unintentionally rude.”)

      Posted by Sigivald on 03/31 at 05:17 PM • permalink


    1. WWI was probably unpredictable, (who thought an assassination in Sarajevo would lead to what it did?) but WWII was essentially a socialist entreprise, so this zero support for armed conflict to solve problems in Germany is intriguing.

      Posted by Louis on 03/31 at 06:52 PM • permalink


    1. Tom Lehrer’s ‘MLF Lullaby’

      Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
      but that couldn’t happen again
      We taught them a lesson in nineteen-eighteen
      And they’ve hardly bothered us since thennn…

      Posted by cuckoo on 03/31 at 07:28 PM • permalink


    1. Hey, wronwright knows an Aussie expression!

      I’m proud o’ ya, mate.

      Posted by Hamish McFootpath on 03/31 at 08:08 PM • permalink


    1. Well, I’m trying mate.  I’m storing up words, waiting for an opportune time to use “arse” and “barbie”.  Don’t think I’ll be using both of them in the same sentence though.

      Posted by wronwright on 03/31 at 08:59 PM • permalink


    1. Current Germany is Holland minus the van Gogh and Fortuyn assassinations. That zero percent number will go up once we have our own Islamist murders. (Which is only a matter of time.)

      I agree with byrd that the pendulum may well swing back over time, but I think he has identified the wrong target. It’s much more likely at this point that rediscovered German aggression would be directed only inward this time instead of also outward. Show of hands: How many Americans and Aussies would actually be in favour of military intervention in Germany and the rest of Europe if/when large-scale pogroms against Muslims take place?

      Posted by PW on 03/31 at 10:10 PM • permalink


    1. cuckoo,
      teh bomb!

      you’ve hit the nail on the head…

      Posted by guinsPen on 03/31 at 10:40 PM • permalink


    1. p.s. is there a hyphen in sticky-wicket ?

      Posted by guinsPen on 03/31 at 10:45 PM • permalink


    1. Underscore — We’ve got him on a crash diet of Chips Rafferty movies and Paul Hogan TV reruns…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 03/31 at 11:19 PM • permalink


    1. Wronwright.  I have a mate who burnt his “arse” at a “barbie”.  It was a buck’s night.  Alcohol may have been a factor.

      Posted by noir on 03/31 at 11:34 PM • permalink


    1. Personally, Germans not wanting to go to war is a plus in my book.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/31 at 11:36 PM • permalink


    1. Louis,

      WWI was probably unpredictable, (who thought an assassination in Sarajevo would lead to what it did?)

      Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of Europe was an armed camp set on a hair-trigger for the first decade of the 20th Century. France and Germany both had elaborate invasion plans worked out to the minutest detail well before 1914. The Archduke’s assassination was merely an excuse.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 03/31 at 11:41 PM • permalink


    1. Well, that’s just wonderful.  Now I have to go back to watching more Foster beer commercials to find two more words.

      (gives noir a mean stare)

      Posted by wronwright on 04/01 at 01:07 AM • permalink


    1. Show of hands: How many Americans and Aussies would actually be in favour of military intervention in Germany and the rest of Europe if/when large-scale pogroms against Muslims take place?

      *Puts hand up*

      Ignoring the fact that pogroms against any religious group (or race) is wrong, virtually all racists hate the USA and Australia, if for no other reason that we don’t hate Israel.

      Posted by Andjam on 04/01 at 05:31 AM • permalink


    1. Well, yes, Andjam, I agree, but that assumes Germany wants us to intervene.  Remember the last time someone invaded them?  Some people call it “World War II”.

      Alternatively, one of the other European nations (or the even EU, God forbid) would support such an intervention.  Now, do you remember the level of support most of Europe gave for the invasion of Iraq, which also had pogroms and mass murders, hmmmmmm?

      If we are going to go on a mission of mercy, there needs to be some chance of success, and not just an exercise to shovel troops into the furnance to satisfy our occupying the moral high ground.  The odds of such success in Germany (given the current situation) are not good.

      While we did so in the Balkins, we had European support for a major air and economic campaign.  And while we did so in Iraq and Afghanistan without much European support, that lack of support (from the major powers, anyhow) made no difference because of the geographics (i.e., Europe is not located in the Middle East or Central Asia), and thus were strategically immaterial to the campaign.

      And before the yappers out there start in—if I were to ask my soldiers to lay down their life, there has to be a purpose in doing so.  Simply throwing their lives away for a mission that never had any significant chance of success is as morally repugnant as any pogrom in progress.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 04/01 at 05:56 AM • permalink


    1. Fair enough . . . the krauts lost their last two wars, and the last war they won was against the French, which, hey, anyone can do.

      Posted by steve68 on 04/01 at 05:05 PM • permalink


    1. The Soviets alone lost over 30 million people during World War II.  The total death toll was well over 50 million in a war caused by Germany.

      The War in Iraq, on the other hand, has killed perhaps 10,000 Iraqis, most of them possibly either insurgents and terrorists or innocents killed by insurgents and terrorists.  And 1,500 coalition soldiers.  This is all due to a concerted effort by the coalition to kill as few and as narrowly as possible.

      Maybe it’s best that Germany continues as a nation of nancy boys and the anglos and its friends fight the good fight to keep peace in the world.

      Posted by wronwright on 04/01 at 07:00 PM • permalink


    1. Ha!  Right on, wronwright.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 04/02 at 01:07 AM • permalink


    1. TRJ says: Simply throwing their lives away for a mission that never had any significant chance of success is as morally repugnant as any pogrom in progress.

      I trust this applies to Gallipoli.

      There’s an Aussie band that sung a song called “What’s a few men?”.

      Posted by nwab on 04/02 at 08:34 AM • permalink


    1. nwab, you are really being an ass.  Gallipoli was 90 years ago.  I might as well use Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg in 1863 to demonstrate the same point.  I was ranting about invading Germany….again.  Future context, not past.

      It’s better to apply the bitter lessons from old battles to new ones.  With all your carping and whinging lately about invasions, you of all people ought to realize that.  Either make a point that makes a difference, or stay quiet.  Making statements like that merely confirm that you are a fool.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 04/03 at 03:33 AM • permalink


    1. Sorry, TRJ. Sore point, I see. How about Bouganville?

      Posted by nwab on 04/03 at 03:36 AM • permalink


    1. PS You should never tell an Aussie that Gallipoli is irrelevant.

      Posted by nwab on 04/03 at 03:43 AM • permalink


    1. Heh… Serbia is certainly one thing, Germany quite another. 82 million people, according to CIA factbook “Germany possesses the world’s third most technologically powerful economy after the US and Japan”.

      Yeah, good luck with a war on Germany. Expect a few more than 1500 troops lost to occupy that place, unless you wheel out the nukes. Which would be utterly retarded.

      Posted by taspundit on 04/03 at 04:34 AM • permalink


    1. You’re still being an ass, nwab.  I did not say Gallipoli was irrelevant, no more than I said Gettysburg was irrelevant (hint: Gettysburg has been a war memorial for over a century).  I was looking forward, not back.  Nor is any battle irrelevant.  It might not have been decisive, or it could have been disasterous.  But not irrelevant.  Certainly not to those who fought and died in it….a perspective that you ought to consider.

      And shifting to WWII battles does not change my point on making comments that are meaningful.  You are merely poking sticks into wounds.  Somehow, that’s not surprising, coming from you.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 04/03 at 04:45 AM • permalink


    1. Thank you, taspundit.  It’s good to see meaningful and intelligent comments.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 04/03 at 04:46 AM • permalink


    1. No problems. Such an action (independent on whether you thought the Germans were justified) would be in the same ballpark as deciding you wanted to make war on Russia, Japan, England or China.

      Consider the Russians and Chinese have murdered 10e7-8 people or so and we have merely issued condemnation (if anything), I think writing a strong letter or two is about all that would happen.

      But way before that, if the Germans were smart they would have some nukes of their own developed and have asked the US to get rid of the remaining bases. I would think.

      Posted by taspundit on 04/03 at 05:15 AM • permalink


    1. One more thing, cook the man some eggs!

      Posted by taspundit on 04/03 at 06:14 AM • permalink


    1. Hey, whatever their past, which is now very definitely long in the past, Germany is a fine nation, and German people are, in my experience, unfailingly friendly, accessible, intelligent and cultured. I don’t think a lack of willingness to invade Iran is a particularly bad thing, not only from Germany. And they gave lager, and consequently me, to the world too.

      Posted by Steve on 04/03 at 02:28 PM • permalink


    1. Yes, and my brother is a fine person.  He has a nice job, makes great money, owns an expensive car, is married to a lovely lady, and has great kids.

      The problem is, he doesn’t take responsibility for the difficult stuff.  A parent is sick.  Gee, maybe the sister can handle it.  An aunt’s roof suffered damage in a storm.  That’s too bad.  Maybe a cousin can help.

      It’s great that a country is a fine place.  Many countries share that attribute including Belgium and Japan.  The issue, for me at least, is whether Germany chooses to make a difference with the problems of our world.  Up to now, I would say NO.

      I agree with the lager point though.

      Posted by wronwright on 04/03 at 05:40 PM • permalink


  1. And schnitzel.  Let’s not forget the schnitzel.  And torte.  Or the bratwurst.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 04/04 at 01:35 AM • permalink