0

What, if any, non-German NATO forces have been stationed in Eastern Germany (i.e. the former GDR territory) since reunification?

6
  • 9
    All questions should document preliminary research. Even if it is just a list of google searches; that significantly helps us to start research and prevents us from repeating efforts that you've already made.
    – MCW
    Mar 9 at 0:42
  • 3
    @Acccumulation you could link the video from your Skeptics.SE question. Mar 9 at 6:09
  • 1
    @DanilaSmirnov Indeed, it seems crucial to understand that this Q is based on QOP's inferences displayed here. These should be repeated here, or as mentioned at least show more prior research than the evident 'watched a video, had questions understanding it'. Otherwise, the answer(s) given here end up quite oblique (à la X/Y-problem) to the underlying target of this inquiry. The A below could be read as to not disprove the video's statement, but it might be read as an overly specific dementi? Mar 9 at 12:53
  • 3
    Not sure we want to re-open this question unless the issues raised in comments are addressed. The current draft of the question obscures that it is based on the notions of a highly political and contentious author, which is very relevant to any research. I normally support re-opening questions with a highly voted answer, but I think the question needs to be clarified that it is inherently political.
    – MCW
    Mar 9 at 18:16
  • 1
    The assumption inferred from Chomsky's claim is wrong: he means German NATO forces (alternative would have been DMZ for the ex-GDR). But apart from that, training of foreign troops in the German East is continuous, if somewhat transitory in their respective nature, eg in officers' schools all the time, and for exercises JAWTEX14 national forces from US, NL, F, I, Sl, Gr, TR, HU, even Aut, Fi and CH(!), likewise for DEFENDER20/21. Stationing of non-German troops on permanent bases however remained exclusive to the West. Mar 10 at 12:56

1 Answer 1

15

No, the stationing (or deployment) of foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic is explicitly forbidden in the last sentence of Article 5 (3) of the two plus four treaty of 1990-09-12.

This came into effect after the 1994-08-31, which marked the end of the Soviet military presence on German soil. Until then Article 5 (1,2) was in effect that allowed the continued stationing of the Western Allies in Berlin.

Allthough occasionally exercises in (and transit through) the territory of the former German Democratic Republic do take place, there are no (non-German) NATO troops stationed there.


Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (two plus four)
Article 5 (3)
Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries:

  • stationed:
    • especially from one of the armed forces, to work in a place for a period of time
  • deployed:
    • to move soldiers or weapons into a position where they are ready for military action

Sources:

14
  • 4
    Thats the legal situation -- whats the actual situation? Is the treaty honored?
    – Polygnome
    Mar 9 at 9:10
  • 1
    @quarague because troops are stationed further east, and generally this kind of treaty is one that isn't known for being honored
    – Hobbamok
    Mar 9 at 9:43
  • 2
    @Polygnome The third paragraph describes the actual situation. If it was not the case, be rest assured, that Russia would have complained about a treaty violation. They have not. Viktor Baranez, a former Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, claims that NATO 'has broken all the promises it made during the process of German reunification'. But the treaty itself makes no mention of eastern Europe, only restrictions inside Germany. In 1990, a NATO expansion was not a topic since the Warsaw Pact still existed. Mar 9 at 10:36
  • 3
    @Polygnome It is difficult, if not impossible, to supply a source for something that doesn't exist. What you can read in the local German press are traffic warnings, about once a year, caused by the transit (or exercises) of troops. Mar 9 at 10:54
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС Again, I see no need. When required, anybody can look the terms up in a standard dictionary: stationed: especially from one of the armed forces, to work in a place for a period of time ; deployed: to move soldiers or weapons into a position where they are ready for military action Mar 9 at 16:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.