Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> That is the unification treaty.

Yes, among other things. It is the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany", and thing it finally settles is WW2 and the subsequent temporary arrangements.

> If you accept that as a peace treaty

The ~1955 treaties between the respective occupying powers and West and East Germany separately, which ended most of the powers of occupation but could not formally end the Potsdam arrangement because the Western allies weren't going to formalize the situation with East Germany and the USSR wasn't going to do the same for West Germany, effectively (but not completely formally) ended the occupation and were essentially peace treaties (but obviously neither addressed the whole of Germany or the whole of the belligerents against Germany in WW2.) Between 1955 and reunification, each of the Germanies was technically occupied as a consequence of the Cold War. But West Germany was generally treated as as much of an equal partner as other major Western nations with the US.

I only pointed to the 1991 treaty because it is simple and irrefutable and the most straightforward, uncomplicated way to rebut your originally clearly-wrong claim that Germany was currently occupied without any peace treaty.




How can you be an equal partner if you are occupied?


West Germany wasn't, practically, occupied post-1955. It was formally occupied because the Cold War meant the USSR had no interest in signing off on the Western settlement with West Germany, just as the Western powers didn't with East Germany, and given the Potsdam Arrangement actually formally ending the occupation required that.


You have to be either naive or a shill if you believe the US didn't leverage any political control over (West) Germany with that kind of large occupational force.


See, this gets to the point others have made in this thread. Your reasoning implies that you should be happy if the US pulls out of NATO and leaves Europe, since Europe would no longer be "occupied" and would thus be an "equal partner".

Europeans are just impossible to satisfy, from my perspective. They will complain no matter what the US does.


[flagged]


Of course Europeans can hold different opinions, and this is part of what makes them impossible to satisfy. But I notice that their method of registering their opinion is always to complain about the US. Instead of saying "Good riddance", you could say "I'm glad we have a shared vision for Europe", since you and I are in alignment.

Furthermore, my strong suspicion is that there is actually a great deal of overlap between the Europeans who used to say "America is exploiting Europe through its presence there", and the Europeans who now say "America is exploiting Europe by pulling out". There seems to be a surprising amount of continuity behind Europe's anti-American thinking, even when it points in diametrically opposite directions. The "de Gaulle was right" Europeans never actually argue with the Europeans who say "the US needs to stay", even though they would appear to be taking opposite sides of the issue. Somehow, anti-Americanism is a far more powerful force than the major underlying policy difference between these two camps.

Anyway, I appreciate your comment. I'll try and link to it elsewhere to explain why we're leaving. Hopefully it will help clarify for some people.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: