Presidential Election 2025

She explained what she meant by the distinction. A difference between an army and Defence Forces.

If you can't cope with the clarification (it wasn't really needed because she spoke about support and funding of the Defence Forces in the very same speech the line was plucked out of and the context removed) there isn't much more can be done.

German rearmament post Russia/Ukraine cannot be credibly compared to the 1930s. Im going to try and outline why below. I left DCU International Relations nearly two decades ago, so I have doubts about my ability to explain this adequetly, but i will try. I welcome discussion and debate on this topic, and of course feel free to criticize me.

Late 1920s - 1933

German militarization in the 1930s, which did technically begin prior to the NAZI seizure of power, was a response to said state having been neutered post WW1. We could go through the differing political factions prior to 33, but they all had their reasons. They ranged from correcting the perceived injustice of Versaille, to wanting Germany to re-assert its power and be able to balance against the old foe, France. Regardless of what faction people belonged to, there was widespread support for re-arming and re-asserting Germany as a power player.

Anyone who doubts this, please familiarize yourself with the Deutschland Class cruiser, popularly known as the 'Pocket Battleship'. It was a clear fudge of Versailles restrictions on German Naval power. A cruiser size vessel, that could fit within the tonnage restriction level of the treaty, but armed to the teeth, so as to be comparable to a Battleship. The designs for these go back to the late 20s, and the first ship of this class was under construction in 1929. They represent a clear breach of the 'spirit' of the Versaille treaty, while technically adherring to it.

Hitler came to power, and the goal for the NAZI's was expansionism. We all know the history, so I wont recount it here. But suffice it to say, they accelerated Military Rearming, and began to openly cotravene the Versaille. The rest is history.

2022 to Present

Germany, since reunification has always maintained a well trained army referred to as a Defence force. Broadly speaking, there has always been a reluctance in Germany to offer greater funding to the Military. Put simply, aside from a few obvious bad actors in German Politics, the population is rather pacifistic in nature. They have their defence force, they have NATO membership and guarantees. They are covered by the NATO Nuclear deterrence. That is more or less satisfying to most in Germany.

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the unprecidented threat of a land based war in Europe, public and political opinion began to shift, regarding the German Military and its Defense industry. While a large chunk of the population remained very reluctant to bolster military spending, they could no longer credibly claim there was no actual need to do so. The European Union obviously moved to begin funding and arming the Ukraine, but this was not without setbacks. Many European Militarys relied heavily on US manufactured equipment. Without wanting to get into too much technical talk; When you buy US military hardware, you do so for your own defence. You cannot then turn around and 'sell it on' to other countries, as the US has a vested interest in determining who has access to their hardware. This was just one limiting factor when it came to funding and supplying the Ukraine.

And this is where the call within Germany, to begin bolstering its own domestic Military Hardware sector comes from. Putting it really simply, if Germany devolops its own hardware, then it is the state that gets to decide who may use it. When you combine these facts, with obvious growing isolationism in the US, regardless of MAGA, the call for bolstering the German Military Hardware industry becomes all the more sound. Support from the US for the Ukraine, is entirely dependent on domestic political meanderings, and you only have to open a single Online News outlet, today, to see how unstable US domestic politics is. While Europeans are, for the most part, united in wishing to support the Ukraine, and see it weather this conflict and emerge strong, the US can make no guarantee of agreeing to this. At any moment, the current occupant of the Oval office could simply decide to cease offering support to Kyiv, and we have seen this occur numerous times since Trumps second term began.

The call for an enlargement of Germanys Military Hardware sector becomes quite vocal with the above as a backdrop. But there remains vocal opposition to this, with one large argument against it being that of Economics. The basic claim is/was, that Germany cannot afford to waste money on military hardware, thereby defunding domestic and social issues.

The answer to this, was to point out that it could be economically beneficial to Germany, and Europe, for the German Military sector to expand. Not only would it allow continued support for Ukraine, but it could eek out a portion of the global arms trade, and provide hardware to those whom the Americans, for what ever reason, are reluctant to trade with. It could, roughly, fund itself; and any investment that the German Tax-payer makes to the sector, would be returned with interest.

This last point is where Catherine Connolly, has put the horse before the cart; Its not that Germany is trying to increase its economic wealth by creating a 'Military Industrial Complex'- Its that Germany needs to economically justify investing in its armament sector, so as to appease those critics of the policy.

A vocal debate could be had on this, regarding what constitutes a Military Industrial Complex, and whether one will emerge from this period in Germany. We could also debate whether or not, what I am stating is merely defending the inevitable creation of such a complex. The long term consequences are unclear too, so we could all debate this.

What we ABSOLUTELY cannot do - and what Catherine Connolly has done - is try to compare this to the 1930s -

In the 20/30s, Germany was at a crossroads. Its people had grown up in a military dictatorship under the Kaiser. Yes there was a parliament, but the German Military was incredibly strong, as was the power of the Kaiser. After WW1, the counrty was hobbled. And while there were growing amounts of pacifists and proto liberals who did not wish to return to the 'old ways', a majority of people wanted the country to assert itself. Militarily. They wished for a return to a more powerful Germany, that could influence politics on the European continent. Really, this only served to assist the NAZIS in seizing power. It wasnt clear to all that Hitler wished for Military expansion, rather than merely re-empowering Germany as a state; but enough support remained for the later, to ensure that conflict was inevitable. The rest is history.

In 2020s, Germans do not want re-armament, they abhor it based on their history of these types of policies. The economic argument is simply a way of providing a more favourable cost analysis of rearming, so that at least the people can see it making monetary sense.

Comparing the attitudes of these two periods is foolish and weak. And lacks all credibility.

Interested to hear peoples take - I can provide links to the above, but really if you have followed politics in europe, since 2022, all of this should be clear.

Jim Gavin now at 4/1 in a three horse race for the Àras.

The same odds as the two horse race for a United Ireland!

🤔🙄

“Wrap the green flag round me boys,
To die were far more sweet,
With Erin's noble emblem boys,
To be my winding sheet,
In life I loved to see it wave
And follow where it led”

spot on.. we don’t need a mouthpiece in the Aras. Government and opposition are the peoples mouthpiece.

Well, she clarified what she meant. There needed to be a clarification made to describe the difference between the two.
You can't handle that, that's on you.