NATO’s military strategy has been characterized as one of flexible response and forward defense. Flexible response has implied the use of tactical and/or strategic nuclear weapons in the event of a Soviet Warsaw Pact conventional attack in Europe could not be contained by non-nuclear means. Forward defense has meant defense as near to the inter-German border as possible, with the aim of conceding minimum West German territory.
(Sam Nunn, NATO: Can the Alliance Be Saved? Report to the Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. Senate, 13 May 1982, p.2)
Why did the author note “near to the inter-German border” in explaining "“forward defense”?
« Forward defence » means to plan to defend as close to the expected point of attack as possible, as opposed to defence-in-depth, which is more flexible and allows for tactical withdrawals in hopes of exhausting the attacker’s strength.
The inter-German line was the boundary between West Germany/NATO and East Germany/ Warsaw Pact. Since NATO had adopted a forward defence plan, that meant that the boundary between the two Germanies was the anticipated forward defence line.
Thank you very much. Do you think “inter-German border” equals “inner-German border” in the context?
One tactic in defensive warfare is a willingness and ability to effect a measured retreat while inflicting maximum damage on the attacker at the same time. This has the effect of trading space for time – rather than risk getting overwhelmed at one point or another and suffering a breakthrough by the attacker, you use the space behind you to be flexible and fight for longer. But that means the fight slowly destroys the country you are defending – Germany in this case. The battle is being fought on the defender’s territory.
Since the West Germans were not in favor of that part of the deal, the NATO plan became on of forward defense, holding the line strongly and forcing the Warsaw Pact to fight and die on its own territory, or as shallowly as possible within West Germany.
Yes, the two phrases are physically synonymous. But the wording hints at a difference in mindset.
“Inner-German” implies that there is a single Germany with a (presumably temporary) internal border drawn in the middle of it. “Inter-German” makes sense if you believe that West Germany and East Germany are distinct and completely separate, with an international border set between them.
Both phrases appear to be used interchangeably.
Much obliged for your informative explanation.
…while still recognising there is a concept of “Germany” which encompasses both.
I’m confused.
This OP doesn’t have anything to do with the Falklands War.
Interestly, google suggests “inner German border” when I type “inter-German border” but suggests “inter-Korean border” when I type “inner Korean border.”
I’m not sure that the writers are being rigorous about the usage.
I’m confused about your confusion, unless this is a whoosh.
Who is saying anything about the Falklands War?
Our OP has become notorious for almost exclusively starting threads about the finer details of the Falklands War, so it’s a little surprising to see them asking about a different conflict.
Well, would defending the Falklands be forward defense ? Negative. So why would NATO not get involved ? Ok NATO excludes events south of the equator …why is that, how does it work ? How does NATO and EU work at Syria and at Libya ? But each member could voluntarily come to assist the UK at Falklands, why not ? Maybe so as to protect their investment in NATO … they don’t want to be kicked out for going against the spirit of the treaty, and they don’t want to go against the Monroe Doctrine… (The UK invasion of the Falklands occurred AFTER the instigation of the Monroe Doctrine !!!). Which would appear to be a NATO related precept.
They’re branching out, it would seem.
Moderator Note
Snarky comments about another user’s posting habits are not permitted in FQ (or in any other forum except the Pit).
Well, when you ask Google today in 2023 (which I can presume, I guess), you have the situation that there are, in fact, two Korean countries and only one Germany. Thus “inter” when Korea is concerned and “inner” for Germany. Whenever you write about the status in Germany of the 1950s to 80s “inter” is most likely the more common usage. I would not expect a Google search to be able to make that distinction so that it goes with the usage that corresponds to the current status - which is exactly what you saw.
‘Inner German Border’ was the normal British Army On The Rhine term for it at that time.
Looking at literature at the time, both terms were used for both countries.