A Test for German Pacifism?

Steven Den Beste thinks it is interesting that France is trying to get Russia involved in European defense. He wonders how this will play in Prague and Warsaw and Bucharest. I really wonder how this will play in Germany. The last time (about 100 years ago) France invited Russia to get involved in European defense, Germany reacted rather negatively and we got WWI.

German pasifism has been very visible, but just how passive is Germany? How passive will Germany remain with France on one side inviting Russia on the other to get involved? This may be an interesting test for German pacifism.

:: Update: John Hitz responds ::

What we regard as militarism in Germany is best identified as Prussian; it is the "face" we know from movies and books and a lot of textbooks. My response drops slightly below that threshold to what I can only regard as cultural proclivities that make a fertile soil for militarism to grow in.

Germans like order; orderly things in an orderly universe where stuff works and there is little unnecessary time wasted on conflict. Which, in any other world would make for the pacifist we have today. Acting against this is their historic location in central Europe where they have spent almost as many centuries fighting French, Austrian, Hungarian, Swedish and an occasional Spaniard as they have spent carving their own little niche in the East at the expense of the Poles, Russians, Latvians & Lithuanians (we can exclude the Estonians since they are simply dis-placed Germans that got cut off by from the rest when the aforementioned periodically reasserted their sovereignty). As a result, they have spent a lot of centuries fighting; to protect their own lands and to extend them; they may be quiet little pacifist now but the have a long history of being otherwise.

Their post-World War II experience has been one of "atonement" for what happened under Hitler and an attempt to find a "better" means of dealing with the international community. One of the reasons that Germany has been one of the principal driving forces in the EU is simple national self interest; if they can get everyone to agree to an economic union then they will have less reason to turn back to military means to implement their foreign policy. That's the good stuff. Tucked into the news articles and snippets along the way over the last twenty years (it is easier now, with internet sites that are not only German, but are kind enough to translate for the non-speaking types)there are still indications that the "old" way has not lost its identity.

As recently as the mid 70's the popular press in (then) West Germany was calling for an increase in the size and training of the Bundswher. The reason; fear that the U.S. might be willing to "sacrifice" Germany in a potential confrontation with the U.S.S.R. We moved more troops and the cries went down but never really completely disappeared. With the re-unification of Germany, the old Prussians came back into the fold plus the Saxons; East Germany had drawn most of their officer corps from the Prussians (naturally) and the line troops from Saxony. They were brought back "into the fold" just over ten years ago for all practical purposes.

Information from there "starts" with the fall of the Berlin wall and unification; but the old militarism was allowed to continue in both states for the benefit of East Germany & U.S.S.R. When Germany committed a small force to the NATO peacekeeping force in Serbia & Croatia following that affair, it was the first time combat troops from Germany had been sent out of Germany; and most of Europe was less than pleased. Interestingly enough, they performed their duties quite well and were part of the successful pacification of the area. I suppose my only point about that is that whatever they might say about having abandoned "war" as an instrument of national policy, the ability to take it back up is there, with ample historical back up to indicate that if they do, it will be with their usual attention to detail and efficiency.

In the post-Iraq world now in its embryonic stage, nothing is sure or certain. Germany has a stake in what happens in the region; not just because of legal and illegal contracts that they have with a (now former) rogue regime but the potential domino effect that our stated policy hopes to achieve. In a world where access to markets has become global and the competition for them more intense; the possibility of being eliminated (effectively) from such an area cannot be regarded lightly. If the post-Iraq Middle East becomes one engineered by the United States, and from which we reap the "lions" share of the benefit; those on the "outside" will have to consider their options. Add to that, the success that we have demonstrated using force and all you need is a nice economic down turn to get people in high places (in Germany) to re-assessing their policies and means by which they can be implemented.

Paranoid that I can be, I do not have too much trouble remembering the "climate" that Hitler crafted his rise to power in. History does not repeat itself; but given circumstances can produce similar results. I realize that I wander on this subject; like I said much of this is trying to articulate things that I have read and discussed over about twenty years meshing with my original study focusing on Eastern Europe and Germany. Is it a real danger? I don't know, for sure. I am, near as I can see, about the only one I know that even thinks this is a viable scenario.