The US military has a policy of being forward deployed around the globe, so it negotiates agreements with may countries around the world to station troops in strategic locations.

The military bases are there as a result of legal agreements and treaties, not because they would forcibly resist any attempts to expel them, and there is no sentiment in the US whatsoever to change that policy and begin fighting to establish bases in friendly countries.

For a parallel, look to Uzbekistan where the US operated an airbase after 9/11. In 2005, there was a massacre by Uzbek government forces, and the US said there ought to be an international investigation. Uzbekistan replied by rescinding the agreement for use of the airbase, and the US left. No shots were fired.

Technically that doesn’t matter at all because all through the cold war West-German and US interests were very tightly aligned (and when interests diverged a bit the US did give West-Germany enough freedom, though they hardly ever diverged much).

I mean, West-Berlin was most certainly occupied until 1990. It’s just that that was an occupation hardly anyone had a problem with.

The US still has some of its largest overseas bases in Germany; see http://militarybases.com/overseas/germany/

The Japanese could certainly ask us to leave, and we would. But they don't, because except for a vocal minority they do want us there.

And Afghanistan is a war zone. I wouldn't consider that anything but an occupation. Which, I might add, they brought on themselves, so I don't have much sympathy.

Nonsense. That's as clear a case of self defense as you're going to find.

(I just googled it and I see it's deactivated on april 1st 2013 actually)

Interestingly, though, Germany never signed a peace treaty with the US. It only signed a "cease-fire" with the US to end the war. :)

Besides, germany wouldn't really have a chance. The few nuclear rockets we control would probably not be ready in time. The USA could just bomb germany down, like it was planned in case of a war with the UDSSR.

M.A.D. still exists by the way. It's still why all major nations are at peace and why the EU gave so much flak to the US a few years ago when Bush wanted to install a nuclear shield. He later had to back down or serious stuff would've happened. (afaik)

Also, according to wikipedia, Europe has 150 to 240 nuclear warheads. Plenty enough to destroy all US major cities.

But... but... what about childish power fantasies and world conquest?

In all seriousness though, the EU does not currently extend to defense; it is currently only a political and economic union. France and Germany have proposed extending the EU to include common defense, but as of today it had not yet been ratified by either the European Council or the member states. See, e.g., the Treaty of Lisbon. (Note that the Treaty of Lisbon technically removes the unanimity requirement in place of a "double majority" threshold (meaning >55% of vote from >65% of countries) beginning in 2014.)

Fun factoid: France lets Switzerland use part of its territory to defend Geneva. And also let it fly its plane over FR territory because CH is so small that it's not practical for pilots training.

..."The Hague Invasion Act,[3][4] since such freeing of US citizens by force might only be possible through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts and the seat of the Dutch government."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pro...

e.g. The UK had plans involving "shooting guards at American nuclear weapon stores in England if they proved uncooperative"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-eve...

Nobody said anything about motive because there is no realistic motive. These 'assumptions' you're seeing are wholly in your own head.

There is, however, real deterrence, and it's interesting to explore its shape.

[NB This is not because I have anything against the USA, just that I've got rather bored over the years with Russia/China being the enemy of choice for authors].