Academics disagree with Catherine Connolly's 'German militarisation' comments

Catherine Connolly told the UCD Politics Society on Wednesday that people were 'absolutely championing the cause of the military industrial complex Germany' as a way to boost the economy, and said there were 'some parallels with the ‘30s'. Picture: Stephen Collins/Collins 

History and politics professors have disagreed with comments from Independent presidential candidate Catherine Connolly likening current military spending in Germany to that of the 1930s.

They said the contexts were “fundamentally different”, with foreign aggression behind the rearmament under Adolf Hitler, while defence was the purpose of Germany's current spending increase.

Ms Connolly told the UCD Politics Society on Wednesday that people were “absolutely championing the cause of the military industrial complex Germany” as a way to boost the economy, and said there were “some parallels with the ‘30s”.

Ms Connolly, backed by parties on the left, agreed with People Before Profit representative Kieran Allen, who said the current situation in Europe was a “drive to war”.

Professor Robert Gerwarth, director of the UCD Centre for War Studies, said similar comments about German rearmament were being made by the German left and parts of the pro-Russia far-right in eastern Germany.

But he said: “Obviously, both the context and the level of rearmament are very different in the 1930s. The current situation is born out of uncertainty — deliberately caused by Trump — as to whether Europe can rely, as it did for a very long time — during the Cold War and after 1990 Helmut Kohl's "peace dividend" — on unconditional US military support in the event of a Russian attack on Nato countries.” 

He said due to “very low investment” in the German armed forces since the 1990s, the Bundeswehr today is “in tatters”, and one senior general said it could barely muster one functional division for defence purposes.

“So the planned increase to 5% of GDP investment in defence is probably needed to build a defensive army worth that name — but with very limited capacity for offensive wars," he said.

Prof Gerwarth added: “In the 1930s, of course, a regime determined to revise the Paris Peace settlement through war massively increased its spending — some estimates are as high as 20% of German GDP — in preparation for an offensive war which nobody in Germany — from the far left to the far right — today wants.” 

Rory Finegan, assistant professor of military history at Maynooth University, said the situation now in Germany and in the 1930s were “fundamentally different”.

He said Hitler’s rearmament was based on an “aggressive foreign policy”, linked with a “racist doctrine” which led to the final solution and the genocide of Jews.

“The rationale for increased defence spending today is the geopolitical tectonic shift and rupturing caused by the Ukrainian war and the realisation to robustly respond to this security challenge and the plethora of hybrid/grey zone tactics employed by Russia,” he said.

He said Germany had also been a major pillar in bulwarking the Ukrainian military with the supply of military material.

“In essence, this is already part of a broader trend among Nato countries in enhancing their defence capability on foot of the illegal, unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine,” he said.

Donnacha Ó Beacháin, professor of Politics in DCU, said Nazi Germany's massive rearmament was driven by expansionist motivations “fundamentally different” from those of contemporary Germany’s military build-up following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“The Nazi regime's rearmament during the 1930s was inseparable from autocracy, aggression, and fascism, whereas Modern Germany’s military spending is reactive, defensive, and institutionally constrained, born from necessity and alliance solidarity following Russia’s attempts to redraw the map of Europe by force and subvert European democracies,” he said.

Prof Ó Beacháin said the historic memory of the Second World War and aversion to unilateral militarism was “strong” in Germany.

He said: “Therefore making any direct comparison with Nazi-era rearmament is not only misleading but fundamentally inaccurate.” 

Prof Ó Beacháin said Nazi Germany’s rearmament was designed to enable territorial conquest and genocide. 

“In terms of militarisation and economic subordination to war aims, it is Putin’s Russia — not today’s Germany — that most closely resembles the dictator-led expansionism of the 1930s," he said. 

"Germany’s increased defence spending aligns with other European states facing direct threats from Moscow, including Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Sweden, which have revised their security policies in response to Russian aggression.”