# Why does the U. S. have so many troops in Germany?



## Derek_Plumber

Pentagon set for shift in Germany - World news- msnbc.com

I could not locate accurate, up-to-date estimates of U. S. troop strength in Germany.  In 2004 msnbc stated there were about 70,000 U. S. troops in Germany.   If you can find an up-to-date record of troops, please link this thread. So, forgiving the lack of current data, how come there are so many U. S. troops in Germany?


----------



## dilloduck

Derek_Plumber said:


> Pentagon set for shift in Germany - World news- msnbc.com
> 
> I could not locate accurate, up-to-date estimates of U. S. troop strength in Germany.  In 2004 msnbc stated there were about 70,000 U. S. troops in Germany.   If you can find an up-to-date record of troops, please link this thread. So, forgiving the lack of current data, how come there are so many U. S. troops in Germany?



Keeps thier economy workin'


----------



## Navy1960

As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.[18] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,200 in Germany, the 33,122 in Japan, 26,339 in South Korea, 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 84,488 military personnel are located in Europe, 154 in the former Soviet Union, 70,719 in East Asia and the Pacific, 7,850 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 2,727 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 2,043 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.

United States armed forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here Derek  hopefully this is a bit more up to date. In answer to your question though the United States has  many reasons why it is still in Germany among them  is our commitment to NATO. Further  US Forces  in Germany act as a deterrant against any hostile nation namely Russia from acts of aggression in the region. One other reason The United States is there is Germany serves as a major hub for  US Army and Military personnel that are  transitioning from one area of operation to the other as well as a vital first line of defense for medical services  needed  by American combat forces engaged in parts of the world.


----------



## Derek_Plumber

Navy1960 said:


> As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Forces were...56,200 in Germany.



That 56,200 works.  Thanks for the research.  What I don't understand is why the United States is putting lives at risk, and footing the bill?  Shouldn't we let the Europeans work out their own military situation?  Why don't conservatives make noise about this?  They are always talking about cutting taxes.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to want to talk about it.  Are we trying to maintain some sort of "Empire" status in Europe?


----------



## brownlou

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.


----------



## Soaring

brownlou said:


> Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.



That's almost true.  You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese.  We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists.   Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II.  They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check.  We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese.  I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are.  If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it.  It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Soaring said:


> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's almost true.  You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese.  We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists.   Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II.  They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check.  We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese.  *I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are.  If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. * It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.
Click to expand...

  you guarantee it?
great. i have a good deal of feeling that you are full of shit.


----------



## xotoxi

Soaring said:


> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's almost true. You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese. We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists. Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II. They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check. We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese. I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are. If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.
Click to expand...

 
So the 52,000 US troops in Germany...how are they keeping the Germans in check?  Are they walking through the streets with heavy artillery?  Are they carefully monitoring the moves of key figures in the German government?


----------



## L.K.Eder

xotoxi said:


> So the 52,000 US troops in Germany...how are they keeping the Germans in check?  Are they walking through the streets with heavy artillery?  Are they carefully monitoring the moves of key figures in the German government?



they are mighty warriors carrying really big guns. 

i guarantee it, youngun.


----------



## garyd

No it has nothing whatever to do with imperialism you freaking tools it has to do with the fact that as WWII  and 9/11 demonstrated isolationism fails.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

garyd said:


> No it has nothing whatever to do with imperialism you freaking tools it has to do with the fact that as WWII  and 9/11 demonstrated isolationism fails.



Explaining reality to idiots is a waste of time Garyd.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Why do we currently have troops in 130 countries along with Germany?  Our empire costs us far too much to maintain, especially with our current economic state.


----------



## Gunny

brownlou said:


> Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.



It has nothing to do with imperialism.  Don't they teach history in school anymore?


----------



## Gunny

L.K.Eder said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's almost true.  You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese.  We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists.   Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II.  They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check.  We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese.  *I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are.  If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. * It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you guarantee it?
> great. i have a good deal of feeling that you are full of shit.
Click to expand...


The US bases in Europe are due to Cold War defenses against the threat of Soviet invasion.  It isn't because we are imperialist, nor is it because we're trying to keep Germany and Japan in check.  

They were to keep the Soviet Union in check.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Gunny said:


> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with imperialism.  Don't they teach history in school anymore?
Click to expand...


Actually no they do not. Not until High School and then very little. They teach Social Studies.


----------



## garyd

Until you get to high school the number of hours of History people teaching history have actually had in college is whatever they are reqired to take as part of their over all degree field which can be as little as six credit hours of college level history classes in which the class is taught not infreqently by some by some bored dude who just got his BS and is busy working on his masters and considers your class a waste of his valuable research time. By the way the same is pretty much true of Math and science below the high school level, which is why the humongous number of errors in many grade and middle school texts go unreported till actual science people check them out and are generally horrified by what they find.


----------



## Derek_Plumber

Now I have cultivated a reputation in this web site as an unforgiving wild eyed liberal, but I am not playing games with this issue.  Last Friday Bill Maher with Republicans on his panel questioned the number of troops in Germany.  Maher and the panelists were pretty much in agreement.  Protection from Russia was mentioned, but that Berlin Wall fell way back on November 9, 1989.  Russia is not a world power any more.

I don't get it, the world is filled with crackpot countries.  I am more concerned about Iran to Korea than Germany and Japan.  Why is the USA always the one to play policeman?  Let these European and other countries put their young people in harms way.  I don't want to say this too strongly, but there is a fair case here for the United States playing at Imperialism.  If we are, we are wrong, and should be spending more time resolving the World Economy.  Now there is a way to make friends.


----------



## Navy1960

Derek here is a little information on Russia.. 

A government official said there would also be more short-range missiles, combat planes, helicopters, tanks and naval vessels.

In all, Russia will spend nearly $140bn (?94.5bn) on buying arms. 

Russia plans a massive increase in its weapons procurement for three years beginning in 2009, with 300 tanks, 14 warships and almost 50 airplanes on the shopping list, a senior government official said on Monday.

Vladislav Putilin, deputy head of the military-industrial commission, told journalists after a cabinet meeting the government planned to allocate 4 trillion roubles ($141.5 billion)in 2009-11 to bankroll equipment purchases to modernize its army.

Putilin said that over the three-year period Russia's armed forces would receive more than 400 new types of weapons, including 48 aircraft, six spy drones, 60 helicopters, 14 warships, 300 tanks and more than 2,000 auto vehicles.
Russia has downsized its Armed Forces to about 1.1 million personnel, but military spending has increased dramatically under President Putin. Defense spending is set to total 1.18 trillion rubles ($45 billion) by 2010.



2007. Russia to boost funding of state defense order
Russia's Military Budget 2004 - 2008+ | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces

The technology for countries like Iran and N. Korea in some cases comes from Russia.
MOSCOW (UPI) - Top Russian and North Korean military officials held talks in Moscow on Friday and signed a military cooperation agreement that will provide the Pyongyang regime with a range of modern weaponry, Russia's state-owned RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Russia, North Korea Sign Arms Deal

So Bill Mahr aside and while well meaning I'm sure, it's prudent for the United States to keep a watchful eye on Russia and if that means  keeping a presence in Germany then so be it.  Further, what people don't seem to understand. is that the U.S. can be asked to leave by the host country at anytime and thus far Germany has not demanded the United States leave.  This is not an example of U.S. desires to dominate anyone, it is a result of prudent defense efforts that have been in place for over 50 years and have worked well and continue to do so. 

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. 

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. 

They are resolved to unite their *efforts for collective defence *and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
NATO Official Text: The North Atlantic Treaty

That is why other than , the previous reasons we remain in Germany, unless your advocating we abandon NATO.


----------



## Derek_Plumber

Why can't we station these troops in the empty bases we have in the United States?  The troops would be at home, and with their families.  It would be good for the economy, and it would cut back on the "Imperialism" accusations.

The whole thing sounds like a Pentagon spending spree.


----------



## Navy1960

Derek, while it's great to want  US Forces to be near their loved one's I can't tell you how nice it would have been to have been closer to mine all those years, other than the factors listed above there is another good reason and thats deployment time.  

The Army goal is to make these brigades light enough to deploy anywhere in the world in 4 days. Initially, these brigades will supplement the light and heavy forces. Over the next 20 to 30 years, the Army envisions the entire force becoming medium weight, with the ability to deploy by air anywhere in the world. To better understand the requirement for strategic responsiveness, as well as what is achievable, this study sought to answer the following questions: Can the Air Force meet the Army's 4-day deployment goal? 

RAND | Monograph/Reports | The Stryker Brigade Combat Team: Rethinking Strategic Responsiveness and Assessing Deployment Options

These light forces that would be in place in 4 days should the need arise, do not include heavy forces like M1-A1 Tanks etc.  In that 4 day time, while US Force should they all be moved back to the United States,  is at serious risk given the rapid speed of  ALB Air Land Battles  that it will be over before US Forces are there to stop it. So yes, there is a need to keep these powers in the region in check until such time as we are formally asked by the German Govt. to leave.  One more consideration the US Military cannot and should not fight or  make deployment decisions based on public opinions but rather on overall US Defense needs. Forgive me Derek, and again, I do understand that it's well meaning to wish American Military men and women be closer to home, but that is the nature of the  job and missions in which they are assigned and does not reflect the Military or the Govt.s desire to  dominate any country.


----------



## editec

> *Why does the U. S. have so many troops in Germany? *


 
*To keep those bloodthirsty Liechtenstensteiniens *​ 
*




*
*from getting their filthy hands on it, of course.*​


----------



## Soaring

Derek_Plumber said:


> Why can't we station these troops in the empty bases we have in the United States?  The troops would be at home, and with their families.  It would be good for the economy, and it would cut back on the "Imperialism" accusations.
> 
> The whole thing sounds like a Pentagon spending spree.


 What you don't understand because of your ignorance, is that the families are living in Germany with their military spouse, and their kids attend American schools sponsored by the DoDDS (Department of Defense Dependents' Schools.)  I know, because I worked for them as a high school teacher for 18 years.  The distance across the Atlantic, and the amount of time it would take to react to a serious breach would be prohibitive with housing these troops and the materiel in the U.S.  We don't want to make the same mistake we made after WWI and bring all our troops home, then dismantle the military.


----------



## Derek_Plumber

Soaring said:


> What you don't understand because of your ignorance, is that the families are living in Germany with their military spouse, and their kids attend American schools sponsored by the DoDDS (Department of Defense Dependents' Schools.).



So, what you are telling me is that as a taxpayer, I not only have to pay for all those troops, but their wives, children, and schooling as well!

Yep, sounds like a Pentagon spending spree......


----------



## garyd

You begin to sound increasingly retarded and more than a little anal to me.  Bringing all the troops home would cost more money in the long run than keeping them on site.


----------



## Derek_Plumber

garyd said:


> Bringing all the troops home would cost more money in the long run than keeping them on site.











Now there's an idea you should present to the Joint Chiefs!  Hey!  Don't the troops all get brought home sometime anyway?  Duh!


----------



## Steve Jobs

Soaring said:


> Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II.  They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check.  We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese.  I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are.  If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it.  It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.



 We didn't have to intervene in WWII, and if the Germans really decide to start another war (which I doubt), I say let 'em. I don't see how wars in other countries are our problem.


----------



## Mr. President

We have troops in Germany because First it was peace keeping the commitment to allies in Europe and Asia.  We have medical facilities in Germany operated solely to treat Casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Big Red 1 recently began coming back from Germany to Ft Riley.  So while we are slowly decreasing our presence it is still necessary to accomplish global missions as are the bases in the other 130 countries.

Because of our bases we are better equipped to react.  The reason no other country can do this is because no other military is as powerful as ours. Combined the Army, Marines,  Air Force and Navy make the most powerful military this world has ever seen.  We can police the world and by doing so ensure that no threat arises that could endanger Americans regardless of their location.


----------



## BaltimoreBob

It was called WWI & WWII.

Baltimore Bob


----------



## Derek_Plumber

Still looks like a Pentagon spending spree, $176,000,000 annually.  I have read the reasons in this thread, but $176,000,000 a year!  Come on, what's the real deal.


The Real Truth - Downsizing U.S. Troops in Germany


----------



## Gunny

Derek_Plumber said:


> Now I have cultivated a reputation in this web site as an unforgiving wild eyed liberal, but I am not playing games with this issue.  Last Friday Bill Maher with Republicans on his panel questioned the number of troops in Germany.  Maher and the panelists were pretty much in agreement.  Protection from Russia was mentioned, but that Berlin Wall fell way back on November 9, 1989.  Russia is not a world power any more.
> 
> I don't get it, the world is filled with crackpot countries.  I am more concerned about Iran to Korea than Germany and Japan.  Why is the USA always the one to play policeman?  Let these European and other countries put their young people in harms way.  I don't want to say this too strongly, but there is a fair case here for the United States playing at Imperialism.  If we are, we are wrong, and should be spending more time resolving the World Economy.  Now there is a way to make friends.



Okay, so you're questioning this.  I said they should realign those troops LONG ago.  They should.  They are there for political reasons to kiss those countries' asses, and so we don't get called "bad guys" in the media by those countries for withdrawing our financial support for the communities around the bases.  

It's called being political pussies and throwing away our money to try and appease world opinion.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Gunny said:


> Derek_Plumber said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have cultivated a reputation in this web site as an unforgiving wild eyed liberal, but I am not playing games with this issue.  Last Friday Bill Maher with Republicans on his panel questioned the number of troops in Germany.  Maher and the panelists were pretty much in agreement.  Protection from Russia was mentioned, but that Berlin Wall fell way back on November 9, 1989.  Russia is not a world power any more.
> 
> I don't get it, the world is filled with crackpot countries.  I am more concerned about Iran to Korea than Germany and Japan.  Why is the USA always the one to play policeman?  Let these European and other countries put their young people in harms way.  I don't want to say this too strongly, but there is a fair case here for the United States playing at Imperialism.  If we are, we are wrong, and should be spending more time resolving the World Economy.  Now there is a way to make friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you're questioning this.  I said they should realign those troops LONG ago.  They should.  They are there for political reasons to kiss those countries' asses, and so we don't get called "bad guys" in the media by those countries for withdrawing our financial support for the communities around the bases.
> 
> It's called being political pussies and throwing away our money to try and appease world opinion.
Click to expand...


Yeah sure, do you believe your own post?

Why did they close a lot of bases then in the last years? Würzburg's economy took quite the hit.

Do you think they keep Ramstein and Landstuhl open for political reasons?


----------



## mememe

garyd said:


> No it has nothing whatever to do with imperialism you freaking tools it has to do with the fact that as WWII  and 9/11 demonstrated isolationism fails.



And since the last time US was "isolationist" was before WW1,.....???????


----------



## mememe

Gunny said:


> The US bases in Europe are due to Cold War defenses against the threat of Soviet invasion.  It isn't because we are imperialist, nor is it because we're trying to keep Germany and Japan in check.
> 
> They were to keep the Soviet Union in check.



The Soviet Union fell in 1992, so why does US keep building NEW bases around the world, to keep Taliban in check?


----------



## mememe

Derek_Plumber said:


> Why is the USA always the one to play policeman?



Because there is money in it for the US economic and political elite.

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf


----------



## mememe

Navy1960 said:


> That is why other than , the previous reasons we remain in Germany, unless your advocating we abandon NATO.




Doesn't work.

When did the Soviet block collapsed? In 1992. Now check the date on your data.


----------



## rhodescholar

Derek_Plumber said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Forces were...56,200 in Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 56,200 works.  Thanks for the research.  What I don't understand is why the United States is putting lives at risk, and footing the bill?  Shouldn't we let the Europeans work out their own military situation?  Why don't conservatives make noise about this?  They are always talking about cutting taxes.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to want to talk about it.  Are we trying to maintain some sort of "Empire" status in Europe?
Click to expand...


Dude, I have been railing about this shit for fucking years.  It would be so incredibly powerful to pull them out, imagine how much more attentive the EU would then be to fulfilling its military obligations to protect itself.

Not only in saved costs, but in manpower shifted to real problem zones, like iran or n korea.

But the EU wants them there, no matter what they say publicly, as it provides them a safety net so they can spend less on their militaries and more on welfare and pensions for their retiring at age-55 citizens, while the US taxpayer has to work until 70 or so these days.  It also provides alot of jobs there, for the people who live near the bases and sell them shit, like clothing, food, bars, etc.


----------



## Toro

Because the beer is awesome.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Toro said:


> Because the beer is awesome.



It is.

And the minute the US heroes pack their shit, the germans will start WWIII!


----------



## mightypeon

Hmm, as a German, against exactly whom are we supposed to wage war?

Recently, holding captured territory has gotten quite difficult, I mean, Russia took a decade to regain control in Chechenya, the USA are heavily struggling against 2 backwater countries that are inferior to them in every way that matters militarily.

Apart from that, every country around us has a nice set of guarantees of independences, formal alliances and a bunch of other stuff on them.

The most drastic thing I could see would be a "punishment expedition" against this greedy tax hole mongers in Switzerland (but they would propably buy nukes from France and blow us to hell, apart from beeing able to call upon some 600K of army manpower).

Apart from that, Germany actually pays around 1.89 billion to the USA per year for the bases.
 Germanys also makes significant economical contributions to Nato (which basically means to the USA) at least according to Peter Scholl Latour (fairly reknowned German policy expert), both Germany and Japan are in fact paying to be "protected".


----------



## mememe

mightypeon said:


> Apart from that, Germany actually pays around 1.89 billion to the USA per year for the bases.
> Germanys also makes significant economical contributions to Nato (which basically means to the USA) at least according to Peter Scholl Latour (fairly reknowned German policy expert), both Germany and Japan are in fact paying to be "protected".



A protection racket.


----------

