Foreign military bases in Germany
Military bases of foreign powers on the territory of today's Federal Republic of Germany already existed in antiquity. The Romans tried to protect their northern border against the inner Germanic tribes by means of forts and border ramparts . In the course of history the reasons for the establishment of bases changed several times. Today it is above all Germany's obligation as a member of NATO to guarantee the supply lines of the allies.
The first permanent military bases in the area of today's Germany were the Roman legionary bases , later fortresses, on the Rhine and Danube in the Roman provinces of Germania inferior and Germania superior from which u. a. the cities of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium ( Cologne ) and Mogontiacum ( Mainz ) emerged. Over the centuries there have been temporary military bases of foreign powers during armed conflicts in what is now Germany. In the Thirty Years' War 1618–1648 , in the course of the Napoleonic Wars and the Wars of Liberation between 1806 and 1815 and during the Allied occupation of the Rhineland and the Ruhr occupation from 1923–1925 after the First World War, there were permanent bases of foreign armed forces in Germany.
1945 to 1989
At the end of the Second World War , Germany was occupied by millions of soldiers from the victorious powers USA , Great Britain , France and the Soviet Union . A large part of these armed forces were quickly withdrawn or completely demobilized. Some remained in the country as occupation troops and were distributed to a large number of former barracks of the Wehrmacht or newly built accommodation in Germany. The outbreak of the Cold War made the amalgamation of all four Allied occupation zones into a single Germany impossible and in 1949 led to the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic separately .
These two German states were incorporated into the respective military alliances of the opposing blocs (accession of the Federal Republic to WEU and NATO in 1955, incorporation of the GDR in the Warsaw Pact founded in 1955 ). The 1949 occupation statute was replaced in the Federal Republic by the Paris Treaties of 1954 and the stationing of allied Western troops was now officially regulated. Joining NATO made it possible to transfer further NATO armed forces (e.g. from Canada , the Netherlands and Belgium ) to the Federal Republic ( NATO troop statute ). In addition, Norwegian and Danish troop contingents were stationed in the British occupation zone until the early 1950s . In the Soviet occupation zone , the group of the Soviet Armed Forces in Germany (name from 1988: "Western Group") of the Soviet Army was stationed until 1994 , the largest occupation army in history that has existed for such a long period. Through the Warsaw Pact and the bilateral “Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance” (stationing agreement), the Soviet occupation forces in the GDR became officially allied armed forces. This state of stationing remained essentially unchanged until reunification in 1990.
1990 until today
The military questions in connection with German unification were also regulated in the Two-Plus-Four Treaty : The unified Germany would remain a member of NATO, the approximately 400,000 Soviet soldiers were to withdraw completely from the territory of the former GDR by the end of 1994, and in In the former GDR and Berlin , no foreign armed forces or nuclear weapons may be stationed.
After this end of the East-West confrontation, the NATO allies also drastically reduced their military presence in Germany. The US reduced its troops from over 200,000 to around 70,000 between 1990 and 2000. Canada and Belgium withdrew almost all of their associations stationed in Germany back home.
In Germany, however , there are still numerous military bases of allied armed forces (in addition to the Bundeswehr ), especially those of the United States Army and the United States Air Force . The United States also has the largest foreign contingent in Germany with approximately 35,000 US military personnel and is primarily stationed in Baden-Württemberg , Bavaria , Hesse, and Rhineland-Palatinate . The British Armed Forces in Germany are still represented in North Rhine-Westphalia with 342 military personnel as the successor to the British Army of the Rhine . The last parts of RAF Germany and the Belgian armed forces in Germany had already been withdrawn in 2002 . The French army is only represented at the headquarters of the Franco-German Brigade in Muellheim. The Netherlands is represented in the 1st German-Dutch Corps .
In 2013, a study commissioned by the US Department of Defense was published, in which the costs and benefits of foreign bases were analyzed and explicit recommendations for their future were made. In the three scenarios presented there - including larger and smaller reductions - z. For example, the Schweinfurt , Heidelberg and Bamberg locations were suggested in all three analyzes as a minimum variant of a deduction, which was also carried out in 2014. Ansbach / Illesheim , Grafenwöhr , Hohenfels , Vilseck and Baumholder were named as potentially closable locations . The RAND study recommended keeping the locations in and around Kaiserslautern ( Ramstein , Miesau , Medical Center), Spangdahlem , Wiesbaden and Stuttgart .
Overall, a fundamental change in the form of stationing has taken place since 1990, especially among the European armed forces based in Germany: While until 1990 locations, training areas and barracks could very clearly be assigned to the lead of individual nations, since 1990 a much more integrative element has been ascertain. The French and Dutch troops are part of binational structures (Franco-German brigade and German-Dutch corps), the Netherlands leases German tanks, British soldiers are located in barracks and British ammunition in a Bundeswehr depot and the only remaining training ground for the British almost half of the training weeks in the year are used by the Bundeswehr and other NATO allies. At the locations of the US armed forces, this integrative element can at least also be determined for the Grafenwoehr training area, which is also used to a large extent (almost 40%) by the German Armed Forces and other (NATO) allies.
Since the end of the Cold War, the task of stationing in Germany has changed, especially for US troops. The task of protecting against a threat from foreign powers has receded, while the organization of operations in Asia and Africa has gained in importance. These operations are controlled in particular via Ramstein and Stuttgart. The former commander of the US troops in Europe, General Ben Hodges, commented on further withdrawal plans from Germany in June 2020 with the words: “The reason why we have US troops stationed in Germany is not to protect the Germans, everything what we have is for our benefit. "And at that point:" The US troops in Germany are primarily used to provide rapid support for forces coming from the USA with logistics, administration or communication. The only real combat troops that We have, are stationed in Vilseck, Bavaria. That's it. Everything else is necessary to support American units on their way to Africa or the Middle East, for example. " The former General Inspector of the Bundeswehr, Harald Kujat, took the same opinion: "The Americans are not here to do us a favor, but because they have strategic interests."
Number of soldiers in foreign armed forces
The 562 French soldiers belong to the Franco-German Brigade in Müllheim. In the meantime, President Nicolas Sarkozy had suggested that he wanted to withdraw these too, but this was not implemented after Berlin had promised to station as many German soldiers west of the Rhine as there were French soldiers east of it. In 2010, the Bundeswehr's 291 hunter battalion with around 600 soldiers was relocated to Illkirch-Graffenstaden .
The Defense Manpower Data Center, which is subordinate to the US Department of Defense , published the distribution of the individual branches of service as of September 30, 2016: The 34,562 soldiers in Germany named at that time were accounted for by the Army 20,606, the Navy 879, the USMC 1,063, the Air Force 12,004 and Coast Guard 10 soldiers. In addition to the US troop strength of approx. 35,000 soldiers, there are also approx. 17,000 civilian US employees of the US armed forces in Germany. There are also 25,000 family members from the USA. The US armed forces are also employers for around 12,000 German civilian workers and are therefore an important economic factor.
With 18,459 units, more than half of the US troops are stationed in Rhineland-Palatinate, 11,689 are in Bavaria, 3036 in Baden-Württemberg and 2471 in Hesse.
In June 2020 it was announced that President Trump wants to limit the number of US soldiers who are in Germany at the same time. At the end of July 2020, Defense Minister Esper informed in detail that the troop strength was to be reduced to 24,000 soldiers. The withdrawal of almost 12,000 men, who would make up around a third of the troops currently stationed in Germany, is to take place from September 2020. Plans for this withdrawal have been in place since summer 2019 and are justified by Germany's insufficient financial contribution to NATO from the US point of view. The Vilseck , Grafenwöhr , Stuttgart and Spangdahlem locations are said to be particularly affected . The command center of US troops in Europe is also to be relocated from Stuttgart to Mons, Belgium. A good half of the withdrawn soldiers are to return to the USA, the others are to be relocated to Eastern Europe, Italy and Belgium. New military facilities would have to be built there, which would cost billions of euros. The stationing of US troops in Germany also costs the US several billion dollars a year.
The reactions of the German population with regard to the withdrawal of around 12,000 units are - apart from the affected locations - mostly calm: According to a survey, 47 percent of those questioned are in favor of the reduction of US troops, a quarter even advocated a complete withdrawal , just under a third would like to maintain or even increase their current strength (4 percent). A good fifth were undecided. Of the six parliamentary groups represented in the Bundestag, five (all but the left) spoke out against the withdrawal of the troops, although even in their own electorate, supporters of a withdrawal are mostly in the majority. Another survey carried out at the same time gave a different picture: According to this, 48 percent of the population see the deduction rather or very critically, while 36 percent find it rather or very good (16 percent had no opinion).
For comparison: the troop strength of the Bundeswehr in 2020: 184,489 soldiers (as of April 2020).
Reasons for deployment and political controversy
Politically, the stationing of foreign armed forces in East and West has always been viewed as controversial. In the Soviet Zone / GDR an open social debate about the stationing of the Soviet armed forces was not possible. In addition, the Soviet armed forces were involved in the violent suppression of the popular uprising of June 17, 1953 . In the Federal Republic of Germany this controversy was reflected in the election programs of competing parties to the Bundestag or in the founding of pacifist citizens' initiatives . Overall, however, a stable majority judged the stationing of NATO troops as a necessary counterweight to the troops of the Eastern Bloc . From the point of view of the Federal Government and NATO, the stationing should take into account the military necessity within the framework of the doctrine of "forward defense", but above all it should ensure the political cohesion of the alliance, according to whose treaty the attack on one member was to be seen as an attack on all members . The first Secretary General of NATO, Baron Ismay , is said to have summed up NATO's mission during its founding years with the words "to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down".
After the end of the East-West conflict, the continued existence of NATO and thus the stationing of foreign troops in Germany was again controversially discussed. In Germany, left, right and pacifists are calling for a withdrawal from NATO and an end to the foreign military presence. The presence of nuclear weapons in Germany in particular has met with great criticism. In this context, the opponents of the foreign military presence often say that Germany is practically "still occupied". The federal governments and majorities of almost all parties represented in the Bundestag, on the other hand, continue to emphasize the political and military benefits of embedding the Federal Republic in the Western community of values and its multilateral, including military, structures.
The “2 percent target”, adopted in 2002 and reaffirmed at the NATO summit in 2014, has increasingly come into the public eye since the assumption of office by US President Donald Trump . Trump wants to enforce this goal in Germany and other NATO alliance countries, otherwise he threatens with consequences up to and including the withdrawal of troops from Germany. In fact, at the NATO summit from September 4-5, 2014 in Wales, it was only decided to move towards the benchmark of two percent within ten years in order to achieve NATO capabilities targets and close NATO capabilities gaps. The NATO leadership currently (August 2019) assesses a withdrawal as unlikely and is not making any preparations.
In the summer of 2018, a survey carried out by the opinion research institute YouGov on behalf of the dpa was published in which the Germans were asked about the stationing of US troops. In this, 42% of those questioned were in favor of a withdrawal of US troops and 37% percent in favor of maintaining the US presence. 21% had no opinion on this.
On August 9, 2019, shortly before Trump planned to travel to Europe, the United States tightened its threat to partially withdraw its troops from Germany. "It's really insulting to be expected that the US taxpayers continue to pay more than 50,000 Americans in Germany, but the Germans their trade surplus for domestic purposes use," the US ambassador to Germany , Richard Grenell . In 2019, Germany's defense spending is well below the NATO target of 2%, despite a significant increase with the target of 1.36% of gross domestic product in the current year. The federal government wants to achieve 1.5% by 2024. However, this cannot be seen in the medium-term financial planning, where the figure for 2023 is 1.24%.
Today's legal basis
When foreign troop units stay on German territory, a general distinction must be made between the legal basis for troop stationing (right to stay) and the legal status of the stationed troops (right to stay):
- The right to stay arises from the contract on the residence of foreign armed forces in the Federal Republic of Germany of October 23, 1954 ( residence contract ; Federal Law Gazette 1955 II p. 253).
- The right of residence arises from the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on the legal status of their troops of June 19, 1951 ( NATO troop statute ; Federal Law Gazette 1961 II p. 1190) and the supplementary agreement to the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on legal status their troops with regard to the troops stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany of August 3, 1959 (supplementary agreement; Federal Law Gazette 1961 II pp. 1183, 1218). After the establishment of German unity, the additional agreement was comprehensively amended by the agreement of March 18, 1993 (Federal Law Gazette 1994 II p. 2594).
- In 2017, the Scientific Services of the German Bundestag stated in a publication under the sub-item Termination of the right of stationing : “Both the residence contract and the NATO troop statute can be terminated. According to No. 3 of the agreement dated September 25, 1990 on the contract on the residence of foreign armed forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany can terminate the residence contract with regard to one or more contracting parties with a period of two years. According to Art. XIX Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the NATO Forces Statute, either contracting party can terminate the agreement with a period of one year after receipt of the notification by the US government. Although there is a legal possibility of termination, it should not be politically feasible. "
Cost of deployment
According to the Hague Land Warfare Regulations, the maintenance of foreign occupation troops after the two world wars had to be financed by the occupied state, in this case by Germany. In 1950 the occupation costs for West Germany alone amounted to around 4.5 billion D-Marks annually, which at that time corresponded to an annual burden of 95.46 D-Marks per head of the West German population. It was not until the German Treaty in 1955 that the occupation was ended and the Federal Republic largely sovereign, which also meant that the basis for occupation costs was no longer applicable.
By joining NATO and stationing allied troops, however, certain costs were incurred by these troops even after the end of the occupation, which was occasionally perceived as ongoing occupation costs. As a NATO member, the Federal Republic was not obliged to assume the costs of stationing the allied armed forces in Germany. In the first few years, however, there were always protracted negotiations about the Federal Republic's appropriate defense contribution to NATO. Because the development of the German Bundeswehr progressed more slowly than expected, the funds earmarked for it in the budget were not used, and the expected financial and military contribution of the Federal Republic to the overall strength of NATO was not achieved. In addition, the sending states demanded financial compensation for the inflow of foreign currency that entered the Federal Republic through the foreign armed forces. Some allies even accused the Federal Republic of neglecting to build up its own armed forces in favor of industrial growth under the protection of their NATO troops sent to West Germany. Great Britain and France, on the other hand, faced a serious financial crisis in the late 1950s and Great Britain considered reducing its troops in the Federal Republic. Thereupon the Federal Republic achieved a guarantee of the strength of the British troops until 1959 through financial aid and arms purchases in Great Britain.
Last but not least, the claim to aspiration (“occupation mentality”) of the former occupying powers that was inherited from the time of occupation contributed to the gradual reduction of these costs until the end of the 1950s. The later "contributions to the costs of stationing Allied troops in the Federal Republic" or "mutual aid measures" according to Article 3 of the NATO Pact, however, were no longer legally or in terms of magnitude comparable with occupation costs. Up to and including 1956, the US Army received the equivalent of 300 million US dollars a year from the Federal Republic of Germany . From 1957 to 1960 this sum was significantly lower when converted into US dollars due to exchange rate fluctuations. The maintenance for the Soviet army in the GDR cost between 622 and 812 million GDR marks annually from 1970 to 1984. This corresponded to between 3.1 and 9 percent of the expenditures for national defense in the GDR. In 1990 the Federal Republic made aid commitments for the reintegration of Soviet troops into Soviet society. B. by building apartments.
After the end of the Cold War, the costs of stationed troops from NATO countries are much lower. The sending countries are given land for military use free of charge, but they bear the costs of construction work and ongoing operations themselves, with the implementation of the construction work being in the hands of the Federal Building Administration. Apart from property taxes and the regulation of maneuver damage, costs for the Federal Republic arise primarily from the withdrawal of foreign troops, namely in the form of bridging grants for former civilian employees and compensation payments for the residual value of investments by the sending states in returned locations. In addition, according to research by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, there are around 50 to 70 million euros per year that the federal government pays for the planning of construction projects for the US Army. The reason for this is that the Americans are not allowed to carry out the planning for such projects themselves, according to an agreement from 1975, but only reimburse their costs and these costs were lower at the time of the agreement and have not been adjusted since then.
From 1995 up to and including 2004, the costs were summarized in the federal budget under Chapter 6009 "Defense burdens in connection with the stay of foreign armed forces":
|Budget year||Income (million DM)||Expenses (million DM)|
|Budget year||Income (million euros)||Expenses (million euros)|
An exact current listing is difficult, as numerous individual titles provide funds in the federal budget. In 2013, the federal budget for expenses in connection with the residence or withdrawal of foreign armed forces still showed 56.1 million euros; In 2014 this item was reduced to 40.6 million euros and in 2015 to 40.9 million euros. The Federal Ministry of Finance pointed out on its website in 2019: "The federal financial contributions in connection with the stay of foreign armed forces are generally included in the general federal budget - Chapter 0802." Accordingly, the expenditure in 2019 amounts to approx. 59 million euros.
In August 2019, a small inquiry was made to the federal government, in whose response a very detailed list of the costs incurred with regard to the foreign armed forces was shown. Renovation costs, residual value payments, construction work, renaturation, etc. were also recorded.
Financial support for the stationed US troops from Germany
2004 and 2009
Former US Ambassador to Germany Richard Holbrooke stated in 2004: “Three quarters of the US troops that were in Germany during the Cold War have been withdrawn. The remaining soldiers are in the country at the request of Germany, Germany pays one billion dollars a year for their maintenance. ”A US study put Germany's contribution to the stationing of US troops for 2009 at 597.9 million euros. However, these are not direct payments. The majority includes the free transfer of properties and infrastructure.
2010 to 2019
The presence of US troops in Germany cost the German state a total of 982 million euros between 2010 and 2019. Of this amount, 648.5 million euros went to grants for construction work carried out by the US armed forces and 333.9 million euros to so-called defense costs. These include above all aid payments to former employees of the US armed forces, the repair of damage caused by US soldiers and the reimbursement of US investments in former military locations.
From the perspective of the host countries
The US Department of Defense estimated the expenditures for US troops in Germany for the year 2020 at the equivalent of around 7.234 billion euros.
The costs and benefits of bases abroad are discussed again and again in the sending countries. Economic crises, such as a financial crisis at the end of the 1950s, led Great Britain to consider reducing troops in Germany for cost reasons. Since after the end of the occupation in 1955 the Federal Republic was no longer obliged to bear the occupation costs itself, foreign currency flowed from the sending states to the Federal Republic through the Allied stationing expenses . Therefore, some stationing states demanded financial compensation from the Federal Republic to offset this economic advantage.
Great Britain decided in 2013 to station the remaining British forces in Germany again on their own territory; this was primarily an economic decision. The British government announced that the withdrawal from Germany would boost the domestic economy by £ 1.8 billion .
In the USA , too , there have been and still are strong efforts to benefit from the economic potential that bases bring with them at home rather than abroad. For example, the RAND National Defense Research Institute , a non-profit organization that carries out analyzes on behalf of the US Department of Defense , presented a comprehensive report in 2013 on the costs and benefits of the foreign bases. According to this report, the grants that Germany made available to the USA in 2009 were valued at 597.9 million euros, 450 million of which were for participation in construction measures, 70 million as compensation for the residual value of construction measures in the USA and 51.1 million euros. for renting homes for U.S. military personnel .
Area and residential units
As of January 1, 2011, the following areas and residential units were made available to the foreign armed forces or the NATO headquarters in Germany:
|United States Armed Forces||53,870||24,226|
|United Kingdom Armed Forces||21,037||12,074|
|French armed forces||196||1,431|
|Dutch armed forces||11||178|
|Belgian armed forces||0.3||4th|
|Canadian Armed Forces||0||6th|
These areas contain barracks, airfields, training areas, shooting ranges, depots, communications systems, administration buildings, hospitals, officers' casinos, hotels, sports facilities, workshops, tank roads, purchasing and sales facilities, schools, churches, pharmacies, cinemas, kindergartens and cemeteries. Reductions in the number of troops usually lead to conversion projects with which the military facilities are used for civilian purposes.
As of January 1, 2015, the area of the properties used by foreign armed forces decreased to approx. 690 km² and that of the rented apartments to 21,000.
As of January 1, 2016, the numbers developed as follows:
in hectares (rounded)
|US armed forces||46,896||15,416|
|British armed forces||13,353||4,049|
|French armed forces||54||379|
|other armed forces
(Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, NATO)
|All in all||62,645||19,958|
The Senne military training area is the largest property of the British armed forces with around 11,600 hectares. The Grafenwöhr (22,600 ha) and Hohenfels (16,000 ha) training areas are the largest in the US armed forces.
List of important facilities
- Headquarters of the US Total Forces for Europe ( EUCOM ) - Stuttgart-Vaihingen
- Headquarters of the EUCOM Special Forces ( SOCEUR ) - Stuttgart-Vaihingen
- Headquarters of the US Armed Forces for Africa ( AFRICOM ) - Stuttgart-Möhringen
- Headquarters of the US Army Forces in Europe ( US Army Europe USAREUR) - Wiesbaden Heritage Home
- United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) headquarters - Ramstein
- Headquarters of the US Marines in Europe and Africa ( United States Marine Forces Europe and Africa , MARFOREUR / AF) - Böblingen
- NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen (location of the AWACS aircraft) - Geilenkirchen
- NATO Command Center Ulm, Command for Rapid Troops and Material Transport (JSEC - Joint Support and Enabling Command), ready for action from 2021 with 270 soldiers from 19 NATO countries
- Landstuhl Regional Medical Center , LRMC ( US Army Military Hospital ) - Landstuhl
- Furthermore, since 2005 there have been NATO “military think tanks”, so-called “centers of excellence”, in which Germany is heavily involved (currently in 17 of 24 institutions), but which are not “foreign military bases” within the meaning of this article. Three of them are located in Germany, in Kalkar , Kiel and Ingolstadt .
Used practice areas
Currently, the US armed forces have left the Hohenfels and Grafenwöhr training areas (also used by the German Armed Forces and other armed forces) and the Senne military training area to the British armed forces . There are also smaller on-site practice areas.
The following is a list of the active military facilities (excluding residential areas, pure operational areas, etc.). The abbreviations behind the individual facilities describe the operator: USA = United States Army, USAF = United States Air Force, Europe, USMC = United States Marine Corps, GB = British Forces Germany, FF = French Army, NL = Dutch Armed Forces, CF = Canadian Armed Forces.
On January 18, 2017, the Scientific Services of the German Bundestag published brief information on the scope and locations of the US armed forces stationed in Germany. Accordingly, the US armed forces are spread across eleven main locations and a few smaller locations with few or no soldiers. Overall, the number of properties is likely to be “in the higher double-digit range”. A very detailed list, e.g. B. also includes residential complexes, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) for Infrastructure is published every year in the Base Structure Report. Accordingly, there were 119 properties distributed across the locations listed below in 2018. This list also includes isolated, unmanned facilities, some of which are secured by local security services, such as B. the Egelsbach Transmitter Facility or the radio relay system of the US Air Force on the Mosisberg , listed.
In August 2019, a small inquiry was made to the federal government and answered, in which a very detailed list of the properties of the foreign armed forces (as of January 1, 2019) was shown; also housing estates, golf courses, etc. the like were recorded.
- Coleman Barracks ( Sandhofen ) (USA) ( ) - Depot and repair of trucks and tanks. Up to 500 employees work during the day on the site, on which many areas and most of the former residential buildings are no longer used.
- Robert Schuman Barracks (formerly Quartier Turenne) (FF) - French elements of the Franco-German Brigade
- Stuttgart Army Airfield ( Leinfelden - Echterdingen ) (USA) ( )
- Kelley Barracks - AFRICOM ( Stuttgart-Möhringen ) (USA)
- Patch Barracks - EUCOM & SOCEUR ( Vaihingen ) (USA) ( ) - In Eucom should be employed about 600 soldiers and civilians 300
- Army Aviation (USAREUR)
- 5th Signal Command (USAREUR)
- George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies ( artillery barracks , partial closure until 2020)
- Edelweiss Lodge and Resort (US Armed Forces Recreation Center) (since 2004)
- Grafenwöhr military training area (USA) (shared with the Bundeswehr and other NATO partners, ) (reduction from 2020 due to the partial withdrawal of the USA)
- Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) (USA) ( )
- Storck Barracks (USA) ( )
- NATO School ( )
- Alpine Training Center (GB), training site with around 35 British soldiers
- Rose Barracks (USA) ( ) (reduction from 2020 due to the partial withdrawal of the USA)
- Dagger Complex (US INSCOM on behalf of the NSA , to be relocated to Wiesbaden after completion of the Consolidated Intelligence Center ) ( )
- Tower Barracks (USA) - Depot with howitzers, armored vehicles and rocket launchers. Approx. eight uniformed men, 20 office workers and 200 contract employees, mainly security personnel and warehouse workers, are on duty here.
- NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen (multinational associations of 13 of the 29 NATO member states) ( )
- NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force Command
- Canadian support unit Europe in the Selfkant barracks (D)
- Herzog-von-Braunschweig-Kaserne (D) - Together with Bundeswehr pioneers, around 30 British river pioneers are also housed here.
- Ayrshire Barracks South (GB) - Vehicle depot for heavy army equipment, can accommodate up to 2,000 vehicles. About a dozen soldiers and other civilian employees are stationed there.
- Prins Claus Barracks (D)
- Blücher barracks (D)
- Dutch elements of the I. German-Dutch Corps
- Normandy Barracks (GB) (Sennelager)
- Athlone Barracks (GB) (Sennelager)
- Senne military training area (GB) - approx. 185 soldiers and approx. 60 civilian employees of the British armed forces are stationed in the Normandy Barracks in particular and manage the training area. In total, around 600 to 700 Brits remain in Paderborn with their families. The Athlone Barracks are used in particular by changing British units who are temporarily on site for exercises.
- NATO Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC)
- Weapons depot (D / GB) - British ammunition, which is managed by the Defense Ammunition Center DAC Wulfen, is also stored in the Bundeswehr's "West Munitions Supply Center".
- Baumholder Airfield (USA)
- Smith Barracks (USA)
- Wetzel Barracks (USA)
- Germersheim Army Depot (USA), European Distribution Center of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
- Daenner Barracks (USA)
- Einsiedlerhof Air Station (USAF)
- Kaiserslautern Army Depot (USA, USAF)
- Kleber Barracks (USA)
- Pulaski Barracks (USA) (partially closed until 2018)
- Rhine Ordnance Barracks (USA)
- Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) (USA, USAF) ( ), 2022: Closure and relocation of the LRMC to Weilerbach
- Polygons Station Bann-Kahlenberg
- Miesau Army Depot (USA) ( )
- Husterhoeh-Kaserne (USA) USAMMCE (closure and relocation to Kaiserslautern from August 2020)
- Ramstein Air Base - United States Air Forces in Europe Headquarters ( )
- NATO Allied Air Command AIRCOM
- Spangdahlem Air Base (USAF) ( ) (reduction from 2020 due to the partial withdrawal of the USA)
- McCully Barracks (USA)
- Training Area Mainz-Gonsenheim (USAG Wiesbaden)
- Training Area Mainz-Finthen (USAG Wiesbaden)
- List of closed foreign military bases in Germany
- License plate of the US armed forces in Germany
- License plate of the Canadian armed forces in Germany
- Dieter Deiseroth : Foreign troops in their own country . Starnberg 1984
- List of locations of the "AG Peace Research at the University of Kassel" , which, however, documents a status from 2004. In the meantime, a number of the locations mentioned there have been given up.
- Photographs, documents and detailed sketches of American military bases in Germany (English)
- The transformation of the US armed forces in Europe
- US bases in Germany (English)
- Paul Schäfer (Ed.): US Armed Forces in Germany ( Memento from January 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 3.21 MB) German, including the legal basis and consequences of the stationing for Germany, as of April 2008.
- www.zone-interdite.net Flash animated world map with military zones (German and English)
- Federal budget 2013, Section 802: Burdens in connection with the residence or withdrawal of foreign armed forces . Federal Ministry of Finance .
- Legal basis for the residence of foreign armed forces , Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development .
- Page no longer available , search in web archives: "Secret War" ) (interactive map) (
- OBRACC: US Military Bases Abroad - The Facts. (PDF) In: overseasbases.net. July 18, 2017, accessed August 11, 2020 .
- OBRACC: Realignment of US military bases abroad and coalition for closure. (PDF) In: overseasbases.net. November 29, 2018, accessed August 11, 2020 .
- OBRACC: FACT SHEET. In: overseasbases.net. July 18, 2017, accessed on August 11, 2020 .
- OBRACC: OBRACC Letter Urging. Overseas Bases Reporting Requirement in FY2020 NDAA. In: overseasbases.net. August 23, 2019, accessed on August 11, 2020 .
- OBRACC: Overseas Base Realignment and Closure Coalition Website. In: overseasbases.net. November 29, 2018, accessed on August 11, 2020 .
- Department of Defense: e-Prints - Military Analysis. In: fas.org. February 14, 2020, accessed on August 11, 2020 .
- Source: Bundeswehr, May 2020
- On the plans of the French government see: Bundeswehr nach Frankreich . In: FAZ , November 27, 2008, p. 2.
- Overseas Basing of US Military Forces. An Assessment of Relative Costs and Strategic Benefits. (PDF) Rand National Defense Research Institute, 2013, p. 414 ff. , Accessed on January 6, 2017 .
- Overseas Basing of US Military Forces. An Assessment of Relative Costs and Strategic Benefits . (PDF) p. 417
- Grafenwoehr Training Area. (PDF) US Army, accessed June 6, 2020 .
- SPD accuses US ambassador of “general pose”. August 9, 2019, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- Trump Plans to Withdraw Some US Troops From Germany, a Key NATO Ally. June 5, 2020, accessed June 6, 2020 .
- Ex-General on the withdrawal of troops from Germany: “That only harms us”. June 17, 2020, accessed June 17, 2020 .
- Planned US troop withdrawal from Germany: “Another own goal by the Trump team”. June 6, 2020, accessed June 6, 2020 .
- Permanently stationed troops. Figures quoted from the German Bundestag: Foreign Armed Forces in Germany (PDF; 309 kB), Berlin April 14, 2011, tables “Supplement to Question 1” on p. 14 (2006) and p. 15 (2009).
- Source: Bundeswehr, August 2016
- Source: Bundeswehr, May 2020, for the figures for the French, Belgian, Dutch and British armed forces. The number of US armed forces is taken from the press reports on the upcoming troop withdrawal from Germany from June 2020.
- Last French military unit to leave Germany. Die Welt, June 24, 2014, accessed March 10, 2016 .
- France withdraws soldiers from Donaueschingen. Badische Zeitung, October 31, 2013, accessed on March 10, 2016 .
- Paris withdraws last combat unit from Germany. October 31, 2013, accessed October 7, 2016 .
- Total Military Personnel and Dependent End Strength By Service, Regional Area, and Country. Defense Manpower Data Center, November 7, 2016, accessed November 22, 2016 .
- Trump is considering transferring US troops from Germany to Poland. June 12, 2019, accessed June 13, 2019 .
- DER SPIEGEL: Costs for US troops: Germany paid almost a billion euros in ten years - DER SPIEGEL - Wirtschaft. Retrieved July 6, 2020 .
- Federal government spends hundreds of millions on US troops. August 21, 2019, accessed August 21, 2019 .
- US media: Trump withdraws 9,500 US soldiers from Germany. June 5, 2020, accessed June 5, 2020 .
- Report: Trump wants to withdraw more than a quarter of US soldiers from Germany. June 5, 2020, accessed June 5, 2020 .
- Report: USA wants to withdraw 11,000 soldiers from Germany. July 29, 2020, accessed July 29, 2020 .
- troops from Germany: Now it becomes clear which locations are affected. July 29, 2020, accessed July 29, 2020 .
- US troop withdrawal from Germany: A concept, not a plan
- Billions expensive, in the end an own goal: What is behind Trump's US troop withdrawal from Germany
- Germans mostly find withdrawal by the Americans good. August 4, 2020, accessed August 10, 2020 .
- Germans support US troop withdrawal. August 4, 2020, accessed August 4, 2020 .
- Majority considers Trump's political maneuver to be inappropriate. August 4, 2020, accessed August 10, 2020 .
- Federal Ministry of Defense: Strength: Military personnel of the Bundeswehr. Bundeswehr, May 29, 2019, accessed on June 13, 2019 .
- Michael Stürmer: Merkel's speech in the beer tent: It's about the future of NATO . May 30, 2017 ( welt.de [accessed August 9, 2019]).
- We live in a world where the American president complains that the German chancellor isn't spending enough on their army. July 25, 2018, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- Scientific services of the German Bundestag: Brief information: On the history and legally binding effect of the two percent target of NATO for the share of national defense expenditure in the respective gross domestic product . WD 2 - 3000 - 034/17 (March 21, 2017), German Bundestag, Berlin 2017 ( PDF )
- Financing of NATO - "two percent target": big word, little effect. Retrieved on August 9, 2019 (German).
- Melissa Leon: US threatens to pull troops from Germany if no increase in NATO defense spending. August 9, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2019 (American English).
- Scientific service of the Bundestag: On the history and legally binding effect of the NATO two percent target for the share of national defense expenditure in the respective gross domestic product .
- Nick Perry, The Associated Press: NATO says it's not preparing for an unlikely US withdrawal. August 6, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2019 (American English).
- Almost every second German wants to withdraw US troops. July 11, 2018, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- dpa / do: "It is really offensive": USA threatens Germany with troop withdrawal. In: welt.de . August 9, 2019, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- Before Trump's European trips: US Ambassador Grenell threatens Germany with troop withdrawal. In: Spiegel Online . August 9, 2019, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- SPD accuses US ambassador of "general pose". In: tagesschau.de. August 9, 2019, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- Johannes Leithäuser: Trump's expensive troop parade. In: FAZ.net . August 9, 2019, accessed August 9, 2019 .
- troops. Federal Foreign Office, March 11, 2016, accessed on July 14, 2017 .
- Scientific services of the German Bundestag: The Ramstein military base. Status issues and possible consequences in the event of violations of the stationing law. (PDF) October 4, 2017, accessed on August 8, 2019 .
- KG Pfleiderer, report to the Bundestag Committee on Foreign Affairs, cited above. with Hanns Jürgen Küsters (Ed.): Unpublished documents. Metzner, Frankfurt a. M. 1998 (Documents on Germany Policy II / 3) p. 603 Note 5.
- Werner Abelshauser: Economy and armaments in the fifties. In: Werner Abelshauser, Walter Schwengler (eds.): Beginnings of West German Security Policy 1945–1956 . Volume 4: Economy and Armaments, Sovereignty and Security . Oldenbourg, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-486-56068-9 , pp. 1–186, here p. 122 f.
- Heide-Irene Schmidt: "The embarassment of strength". Germany's position in the “International Monetary System” 1958–1968 . In: Ursula Lehmkuhl , Clemens Wurm, Hubert Zimmermann: Germany, Great Britain, America . Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2003, p. 165 f.
- Werner Abelshauser: Economy and armaments in the fifties. In: Werner Abelshauser, Walter Schwengler (ed.): Beginnings of West German Security Policy 1945–1956 Volume 4: Economy and Armaments, Sovereignty and Security . Oldenbourg, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-486-56068-9 , pp. 1–186, here p. 112 f.
- Boggs: Foreign Relations Of The United States, 1958-1960 Volume III, National Security Policy; Arms Control And Disarmament, Document 129: Memorandum of Discussion at the 469th Meeting of the National Security Council S. Eisenhower Library, December 8, 1960, accessed July 24, 2011 .
- Silke Stajukow: Occupiers. "The Russians" in Germany 1945–1990 . Göttingen 2008, p. 103 ff.
- German Bundestag: Foreign Armed Forces in Germany (PDF; 309 kB), Berlin April 14, 2011
- Federal Budget 2013. ( Memento of the original dated August 24, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Federal Ministry of Finance
- Oliver Hollenstein: Secret War - Germany pays millions for the US military. In: sueddeutsche.de . November 16, 2013, accessed April 27, 2016 .
- Federal Budget 2004 Section 60 ( Memento from February 10, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
- Federal budgetand asset account for the 1998 budget year (PDF) November 13, 2007, accessed on June 19, 2016 .
- Federal budget and asset accounts for the 1999 budget year (PDF) November 13, 2007, accessed on June 19, 2016 .
- Federal budget and asset accounts for the financial year 2000. (PDF) May 7, 2001, accessed on June 19, 2016 .
- Federal budgetand asset account for the financial year 2001 (PDF) April 8, 2002, accessed on June 19, 2016 .
- Federal Budget 2003 Section 60 ( Memento from January 17, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
- Cf. in the 2007 federal budget z. B. the titles 0814-88304, 0814-71203 and 1402-53301.
- Property service for the visiting forces. Retrieved August 2, 2019 .
- Federal Budget 2019. Section 08. (PDF) Federal Ministry of Finance , accessed on August 2, 2019 .
- Printed matter 19/12356. Costs of construction projects on NATO properties in Germany. (PDF) August 13, 2019, accessed February 3, 2020 .
- "Fundamental Break" . In: Der Spiegel . No. 36 , 2004 ( online ).
- Overseas Basing of US Military Forces. An Assessment of Relative Costs and Strategic Benefits. (PDF) RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2013, p. 412 , accessed December 24, 2016 . P. 412
- DER SPIEGEL: Costs for US troops: Germany paid almost a billion euros in ten years - DER SPIEGEL - Wirtschaft. Retrieved July 6, 2020 .
- Army return from Germany to boost UK economy by £ 1.8 billion. March 5, 2013. Retrieved July 19, 2017 .
- Overseas Basing of US Military Forces. An Assessment of Relative Costs and Strategic Benefits. (PDF) Rand National Defense Research Institute, 2013, p. 412 , accessed December 24, 2016 .
- Withdrawal of the British armed forces. Federal Agency for Real Estate Tasks, accessed on September 4, 2016 .
- Federal Finance: Property service for the guest armed forces. Retrieved July 1, 2016 .
- Request to the BImA as the responsible authority in July 2016
- Senne / military training area. Federal Agency for Real Estate Tasks, accessed on November 4, 2016 .
- Ulm becomes NATO command center. June 6, 2018, accessed July 25, 2019 .
- Around Ulm and around NATO. March 28, 2019, accessed July 25, 2019 .
- Christopher Schwitanski: NATO Centers of Excellence. Planning for the next war. (PDF) June 2016, accessed on July 25, 2019 .
- Overview of the extent and locations of the US armed forces stationed in Germany. (PDF) Scientific Services of the German Bundestag, January 18, 2017, accessed on April 23, 2017 .
- Base Structure Report 2018 (PDF) Retrieved August 2, 2019 .
- No withdrawal of the US Army. April 4, 2018, accessed July 16, 2020 .
- What Stuttgart is losing with the US soldiers. July 31, 2020, accessed August 4, 2020 .
- Despite withdrawal from Germany: British Army remains in the Allgäu. March 22, 2019, accessed October 8, 2019 .
- US Army opens depot. May 10, 2017, accessed July 16, 2020 .
- "Changed security situation": The British remain OWL. August 10, 2018, accessed July 16, 2020 .
- British Military Remains - Impact on the City? July 18, 2018, accessed July 20, 2018 .
- British develop the Senne as a NATO training area. July 14, 2018, accessed July 20, 2018 .
- British armed forces in North Rhine-Westphalia after 2020. July 13, 2018, accessed July 20, 2018 .
- Why Britain will keep its army in Germany after Brexit. October 1, 2018, accessed June 13, 2019 .
- Bundeswehr: Wulfen hub. September 28, 2015, accessed November 17, 2019 .
- state government welcomes the decision to keep the British armed forces at the Senne military training area. July 13, 2018, accessed July 20, 2018 .
- US, German engineers discuss base consolidation at the annual conference. April 26, 2016, accessed September 4, 2016 .
- The Americans' medical supply depot wants to start withdrawing. July 9, 2020, accessed July 10, 2020 .