Germany's Not That Sorry Anymore

And its newfound assertiveness is tearing Europe apart.

BY YASCHA MOUNK | OCTOBER 14, 2011

With market confidence in Greece and Italy further eroding, Germany's cash reserves are now the last best hope for the euro. Without a bold, continentwide rescue effort led by Germany, the single currency is likely to disintegrate. Yet it now seems clear, as indeed it should have for the last three years, that Angela Merkel's government would rather risk the euro's collapse than act decisively.

Germany has profited mightily from the adoption of a common currency. Blessed with a dynamic export economy that does most of its trade within the eurozone, it has gained more than anyone else from the greater ease of doing business with its neighbors. What's more, even Germans who remain nostalgic for the Deutsche mark should realize how catastrophic a collapse of the euro would be. The world economy would fall back into recession. German exports would shrink precipitously. German banks, which have large holdings of Greek and Italian assets, would require vast sums from taxpayers to survive. Unemployment and the national deficit would skyrocket.

Germans, in other words, ought to be falling over themselves to protect their currency from meltdown. And yet, at each and every turn, they have done as little as they possibly could. When pushed to the brink, Merkel has been willing to make available modest funds to avoid immediate financial meltdown; under intense international pressure, she has recently persuaded the Bundestag to increase Germany's contribution to the European Financial Stability Facility, a bailout fund for the euro. But despite periodic promises, she has not even tried to look for a large-scale political or financial plan capable of ending the crisis. In fact, she continues to oppose any proposal -- like a truly harmonized fiscal policy or the introduction of Eurobonds -- that might help European economies regain the confidence of the markets. Why?

To explain Germany's response to the crisis we must start from the fact that the country has undergone a dramatic transformation over the last 20 years. In the postwar era, leaders from Konrad Adenauer to Willy Brandt realized that, for Germany to be readmitted to the fellowship of civilized nations, it had to atone for the recent past. Germany thus paid reparations to Israel, concluded peace treaties with its eastern neighbors, and, above all, entered an unwavering alliance with former foes like Britain, France, and the United States.

But the contrite Germany of the postwar era has been long gone. Since Germany's reunification, the need to atone for Auschwitz has been replaced by the desire to draw a definitive finish line underneath irksome talk of the Third Reich.

The first decisive step in this direction was taken in 1998 by Martin Walser, a famous novelist, when he called Auschwitz a "moral baseball bat" wielded by sinister outsiders intent on harming Germany's interests. Germany's assembled political and cultural elite feted Walser's speech with standing ovations.

The call for a finish line went on to shape Germany's foreign policy. In 2002, struggling with a difficult reelection campaign, then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder decided to exploit his opposition to the Iraq war for electoral gain. His country, he promised, would no longer be America's lapdog; instead, it would go the "German way." Schröder unexpectedly won reelection.

Finally, during the Libya crisis, Germany's center-right government demonstrated that even the traditionally more hawkish and pro-American parts of the political spectrum are now intoxicated by this notion of independence. Foreign Secretary Guido Westerwelle not only refused to let German troops participate in the Libya operation -- he even went so far as to abstain in the crucial U.N. vote authorizing the mission.

JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ECONOMICS, EUROPE
 

Yascha Mounk, the founding editor of the Utopian, is a political theorist at Harvard University. He is working on a book about German-Jewish relations since 1945.

CANADIANSYRIAN

9:25 PM ET

October 14, 2011

it has nothing to do with the

it has nothing to do with the past.
here in Canada the rich provinces always mad about money transfers to Ottawa , why would Alberta give mony to some lazy " have not provinces .
why would Germany gives money to the Greeks to eat free sovlaki and drink free ozo ?

 

CHRIS1987

6:12 AM ET

October 17, 2011

is not entirely true

Not always what we are told is to be true! In the development of my projectHotel Abano Terme, I never asked anybody anything, just because it's easier to get by nowadays!

 

MORANI YA SIMBA

10:26 PM ET

October 14, 2011

Unconvincing piece

As a Dane (currently residing in the USA), I have a natural interest, on behalf of friends and family at home, in Germany's mental state. So, although I would normally be considered "pro-German" the Nazi soldiers on the cover picture of this article naturally arose an instant paranoia. And that is my first criticism of the article. The author criticizes Germany for not being willing to go to war, in Iraq and then Libya. Shouldn't a big peace sign then be a more appropriate tag picture for the article? Whatever Germany may be doing wrong, it cannot be accused of menacing anyone militarily or physically. So, whether it was the author of the article or the editor of the site that chose Nazi soldiers w the headline "Germany is not that sorry anymore", those soldiers are misleading.

Then the author writes that "compared with the United States, China, or Russia, Germany is a small power with an even smaller military" which is, again, not a deep reading of international affairs. First of all, Germany has a bigger GDP than Russia. Second of all, it is a bigger exporter than either the US or Russia and is 4th in the world, behind the US at 3rd, in motor vehicle production, at 5.9 milion units, compared to America's 7.8 million units in 2010. Fewer units than the US, for sure, but hardly in a different league (and about 4 times as many units as Russia). So, while smaller in population than those three countries, and by far, in area, I am not sure I think it is accurate to call Germany a small power compared to them, and certainly not Russia (note that the article says "power" not "country," and except for Russia's nuclear arsenal, I think it safe to say that Germany is actually a more powerful country than Russia.) It is true that Germany has a smaller military than those states but that is probably due to a mix of history, peaceful neighbors and NATO membership.

Then this: "no more successful ... than yesterday's Germany would have been at defending itself against the Soviet Union."
I assume "yesterday's Germany" is the West Germany of the Cold War. Well, the Germany before that Germany (the really ugly one), came within a whisker of taking said Soviet Union apart in a thousand pieces and would have succeeded had either of two been true, a) a wiser strategist in Berlin or b) no Western Allies. Again, West Germany would have been an entirely different state had it not been for NATO. For starters, it would most likely have developed a sizable nuclear force against the Soviet Union and probably been far more militarized than was the case.

I agree that it is vastly in Germany's interest to help the rest of Europe and that Greece has been recklessly spendthrift. But I fully agree with the Germans that Greece, and other countries, need to control their finances far better than they have. That is not just a German position; that is the view of all Northern European countries. And it certainly deserves mention that Greeks have danced in the streets in Nazi uniforms and suggested that the Federal Republic is the second coming of the Third Reich, something that is beyond unfair and low:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/at-center-of-eurozone-crisis-one-woman-and-the-fight-of-her-life/246478/

I'm sorry but I find the article paranoid and unfair. As "CANADIANSYRIAN" says in the first comment, Canada has the same rich member/poor member dynamic as the EU. The US has the same and if this is the strongest case against a new "self-assertive" Germany, I am happy I recently defended Germany against Greek demonstrators that compared Mrs Merkel to Hitler.

I find the arguments weak and unpersuasive so, as a fellow PhD candidate (at University of Copenhagen and NYU) I have to say I hope Harvard keeps you a little longer so you can mature as a scholar before they set you loose. Best wishes.

 

CDOYLE

11:18 AM ET

October 15, 2011

All I want to say is that

All I want to say is that Morani's response is awesome, and perhaps more worthy of featuring in FP magazine than the article proper :)

 

HURRICANEWARNING

2:51 PM ET

October 15, 2011

well...that was an extremely

well...that was an extremely well thought out response. The ONLY problem I have with it, is that Germany (despite it's strong economy), is NOWHERE near as powerful as the U.S., China, or Russia. Having a robust economy is great, but it won't really matter if any of those 3 countries decides to mobilize their military against you. Just saying. For example: If the US wanted to, it could cripple the German economy by simply stopping the shipping of goods, this is because the U.S. Navy literally owns the oceans. Germany would have zero response to such a move. And even though historically Germany did almost take the USSR (using total surprise by the way); there is no way they could have held onto it. The point is, while the Germans are a great power, the world has changed and a large and powerful military is actually more important than ever. Germany's power relative to the "Big 3" is fairly small (as a part of the euro-zone however, that equation changes). They should act accordingly. I think that is more or less the point of this article. The author is simply stating that Germany has a historical tendency to get a little "too big for its own shoes"; so to speak. However, I agree with you completely that the Nazi stuff is a little overboard. Honestly, when are we going to let up on that? No need to remind them in perpetuity.

 

BING520

7:02 PM ET

October 15, 2011

Excellent!

Well done, Mr. Simba.

 

DOOMED TO REPEAT

4:23 AM ET

October 16, 2011

Missed the Point

Moraniya, you have completely missed the author’s/editor’s point when depicting German soldiers during WW2. The title of the piece is “Germany’s Not That Sorry Anymore” and the picture of the soldiers is a direct tie-in with the argument that Germany no longer feels the need to atone for it’s Nazi past.

As for your assessment that “Germany is a more powerful country than Russia”, I do not know how you derived such an idea, but you need to broaden your scope of thought and realize that a country’s “power” is not solely derived from it’s economic influence. Take into account Germany’s influence over Iran or North Korea.

Why are you comparing post WW2 Germany with Nazi Germany when the author’s point is to compare Germany of today going at it “on it’s own” against global challenges? I do not believe you completely read the article as you are picking on side issues.

Concerning your argument of Nazi Germany conquering the U.S.S.R. had it had a wiser strategist or no Western Allies to fight, my response is that Hitler mostly went against his best generals’ advice. That includes the success of invading France as well as the initial success of invading Russia. And about the U.S.S.R. having no Western Allies, blame that on Germany for welcoming a two-front war. I whole-heartedly encourage you to read history books instead of glancing at the pictures.

And you’re right… West Germany would have been an entirely different state had it not been for NATO. But for starters, it would have been a Russian satellite state in the likes of Poland and probably been far more agrarian than has been the case.

As for Germany’s economic status, it needs to be reminded where most of its products have been selling. In order for Germany to have exports the rest of the EU (and the world) have to have German imports.

I find your response out of point and unrelated to the article with a few exceptions. As a PhD candidate at the University of Copenhagen and NYU, I hope those schools’ deans are avid FP online readers.

 

COMETLINEAR

6:23 PM ET

October 16, 2011

I don't really understand the praise for this commenter

The amount of actual information conveyed is fairly minimal.

 

VICTORPANAK

12:50 AM ET

October 17, 2011

Misunderstood point of article

I think the point the author is trying to make is that Germany's eagerness to assert its non-nazi, independent german character is causing it to make decisions in European policy that go against its self-interest. The act of bailing out greece is unpopular among these germans who want to assert Germany's independence. They should, however, realize that there are moments in a country's history where being humble and helping out a neighbor (despite the neighbor's irresponsible behaviour) can potentially be in the very interest of both countries.

It may be very true that there are other, more important, less ideological reasons for Germany's refusal to bailout Greece, but considering the ideological side has its merit. I think its not unfair to say that the mentality the author refers to in Germany is similar to some of the mentality shown by American politicians. National self-interest is disregarded in favor of national pride or party politics.

Finally, I definitely agree with many of Morani's points on the strength of Germany. If Europe were to fall into a state of war (highly unlikely in the immediate future), Germany's industrial capabilities, converted into military capabilities could be very effective. Possibly more powerful even than Russia. However, these facts do not deny the validity of the author's point.

Much respect to your response. Just found the author's point interesting and wanted to point out that his overall point is still valid despite the mistakes you've so eloquently corrected.

 

PENNFLYER

2:20 AM ET

October 17, 2011

what about the banks?

the only missing piece here is merely the most important one: german financial experts, just like most financial experts, did not do their homework, and so they put their countries on the hook. how could people as smart as germans be so exposed to a place like greece? because their bankers are no more useful nor wiser than any other humans, and yet as a professional class they are treated with undue deference and allowed to play with the fate of economies. yes, the germans on average make wiser economic policy decisions than the greeks, and it shows in their actual production figures. however, as Michael Lewis has shown, their bankers are no smarter than anyone else's, because modern banking and finance has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional virtues of so-called germanic conservatism, stability and productivity. and yet the result of all this is that now germans feel morally superior to greeks instead of addressing the true source of their problem: sanctioning a system that allows people to gamble with billions when they are clearly UNQUALIFIED for such activity. banking never was nor is today either rocket science or molecular biology or surgery or engineering: all those professions are more comprehensively challenging than what normal people understand as "banking," which is the cautious and intelligent management of other people's money. but nowadays bankers get to play with billions largely unchecked, having become the most/least lucrative profession of all: professional gambling. this is the crux of the crisis in europe and elsewhere, and yet the focus is on the nature of the greeks! yes, the greek corruption and inefficiency is a problem, but it's quite manageable compared to addressing a financial system that exposed practically the whole western world to ridiculous risk.

 

PENNFLYER

3:04 AM ET

October 17, 2011

for the record, i agree that

for the record, i agree that the article is trite and misguided. Germany is a small power? in what universe? are you under the impression that either it or Japan could not militarize and rather quickly become enough of a "power" to satisfy your definition?

i support the original decision to allow the greeks into the euro-zone. they were given the benefit of the doubt, and they really did fail exquisitely. they should be allowed to leave so they can devalue their currency and develop the political tools to right their economy, then re-enter the euro if they wish. the banks that are exposed should learn to take a real haircut, although i am not at all fanatical about this. i am pro-bank and pro-business, pro-europe, pro-greece and pro-germany. but everyone needs to take responsibility and take the hits fairly. the greeks should leave for their own best interests, and also because they lied so egregiously. they deserve the resulting shock. germany has no special responsibility to bail them out. the greeks would see that there is no other way forward but real reform, and the germans would come to understand where their leaders failed when the bill from the greek default comes due. some banks should definitely be going out of business here, and then the german government/taxpayer will take a hit anyway to mitigate the public losses.

otherwise, let the greeks stay and let europe suffer the resulting exacerbation of nationalism, of which a false sense of victimhood is an excellent driver. germans will blame the greeks, greeks will blame the germans, and the status quo will worsen. it is unwise to impose austerity externally, especially by a powerful germany -- it needs to come from an internal recognition of reality. i see better odds of that happening by defusing this conflict and letting each house set itself in order independently.

 

BEYONDINFINITY

10:14 AM ET

October 17, 2011

HURRICANEWARNING

"US wanted to, it could cripple the German economy by simply stopping the shipping of goods, this is because the U.S. Navy literally owns the oceans"

That´s nice, but:

1) Germany´s main partners are in EU. No need for oceans there.

2) If US Navy owns the oceans how come they cant beat few ragtag pirates and the whole world has to come to help out?

 

KATEHOFSTRA

3:39 AM ET

October 18, 2011

completely agree. Mounk's

completely agree. Mounk's article plays on the memory of violence in a dangerous way.
His desire to equate Germany's new found assertiveness with a rejection of guilt and responsibility for the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust displays a disturbing inability to view the actions of Merkel outside the context of the first half of the century. Germany's rejection of the wars so easily entered into by the rest of Europe and the United States should be seen not as a clear link with its violent past but as a clear break with it. Shame on FP for publishing this article with a picture of Nazi soldiers, a sad attempt to play on the associations of readers and join the fear mongering ranks of Fox News, CNN and the like. I expected more.

 

VICTORPANAK

12:33 PM ET

October 18, 2011

Katehofstra..,

The point of the article is precisely the fact that Germany is overly-concerned with breaking from its past. The result of this over-concern is an isolationist, non-interventionist policy vis-à-vis european affairs that is actually detrimental to German interests. The example of Greece quite clearly shows this. Libya, to a certain extent, as well (it's debatable whether intervention of Libya would have been to the benefit of German interest). Read into the author's intentions more clearly next time instead of dismissing it because it seems to somehow link modern Germany with the Nazis. To categorically dismiss such arguments as outrageous/appalling (FOX news style), ignores the very natural fact that Germany's nazi past still has an influence (albeit a steadily diminishing one) on its policies. The author points to one of the effects of this influence.

 

LUCHIK33

4:13 PM ET

October 18, 2011

Agree with everything except

Agree with everything except the statement, "Germany is actually a more powerful country than Russia". Frankly it smells of old-fashioned xenophobia and unjustified bravado (especially in today's world). Russia has bigger military, quite a lot of modern military technology (which it exports worldwide on a bigger scale than Germany), way more tanks, waayy more military aircraft (2700 compared to 700), way more fit for military service, bigger defence budget, waayy bigger naval power (i.e. 14 Destroyers to Germany's 0, 60 submarines compared to Germany's 4). I can continue and continue really. From purely a military perspective, Russia is 2nd worldwide; Germany is not even in the top 10. Ya, Germany is quite more developed than Russia economically and maybe has better trained soldiers...that doesn't mean that it's "more powerful". The Third Reich was more powerful than the Soviet Union and much more ready to fight (in the beginning)...but look how that ended up. Now think what would happen now when Russia's military is 3 times bigger in almost every aspect. Look with whom Germany's former Chancellor Schröder has been working with for the last 6 years-Gazprom, Lukoil in partnership with BP....Russian companies. Kinda weak for a former Chancellor of The Great Germania working with a "much [less] powerful country", isn't it?

 
 

DON ESTEBAN

2:39 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Revealing

One of the worst articles I've read here for a long time.
It's more revealing that 65 years after WW2 the anglo-saxon world still is not able to get rid of clichés
about germans and germany. Nowhere else in the world these prejudices and resentments are as persistant as in the UK and the US.
As MORANI YA SIMBA mentioned, first you show a picture with some Nazi-soldiers and then you accuse Germany not to go to war anymore. In the current crisis, german taxpayers contributed already 200 billion bailout money to the rest of europe, and more is to come.
Please show me a country where these actions by the government would be hugely pooular with their electorate.
And by the way, I am german and think we should do the bailout....

 

RANDOM25

5:02 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Sorry about it?

"It's more revealing that 65 years after WW2 the anglo-saxon world still is not able to get rid of clichés about germans and germany. Nowhere else in the world these prejudices and resentments are as persistant as in the UK and the US."

Perhaps starting the largest armed conflict in the history of humanity and attempting to eliminate an entire race of people is something that the Brits and Americans haven't simply chalked up too much Jagermeister. Also, your analysis forgets to mention Russian animosity towards Germany, perhaps that is because over 20 million of them died during "The Great Patriotic War." It would seem that these "Cliches about Germany" are held in those nations who had to do all of the fighting.

 

BING520

7:12 PM ET

October 15, 2011

RANDOM25

@RANDOM25

Unfortunately your writing evinces Russia, US & UK must hold on to a perpetua hatred against Germany. FP's portray of today's Germany with a parade of Nazi soldiers is as unfair as the US being portrayed as an exterminator of American Native peoples.

 

BBH1929

8:40 PM ET

October 16, 2011

Actually..

Random,

Maybe the point is that the people who were Nazi's are all dead or very old. And maybe there is some resentment from later generations about having a label slapped on them that they had no part in creating, and have atoned for.

I mean, I guess you could argue against that if you feel it's ok to stereotype whole nations of people as long as they are western.

Why shouldn't Germans feel they have the right to be independent just like every other nation? Should they self-flaggelate themselves forever. I guess you have to understand that if someone gives you an order, or strongly argues that you do something, you may want to say no to assert your independence if you feel insecure about it. If someone comes to you as a partner and speaks to you as an equal, who doesn't treat you like you owe them anything for past actions, then you feel that you are actually making that decision one your own. Make sense?

 

BEYONDINFINITY

10:10 AM ET

October 17, 2011

RANDOM25

"...attempting to eliminate an entire race of people ...."

Not sure americans are the right people to moralize about this. You did the same with native indians. (and then stole their land)

 

DON ESTEBAN

5:31 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Random25: There is no denial of that

in the broader public in Germany today and the discussion about the deeds of my grandfathers generation is alive and well.
My question is why not only the media, but even scholars in the anglo-saxon world turn immediately to a picture of a country they apparently never visited in the last 30 years or so or at least decided to ignore modern Germany and rather stick with the Hun.
Tell me, is ist completely out of the imagination of these types that a society changes?
What is the connection between the circumstances of WW2 and todays financial issues?

 

ARVAY

6:43 AM ET

October 15, 2011

them dam Germans

. . . have the temerity to create sound economics, maintain labor-management peace and prosper while the victors sh*t repeatedly in their own nests.

Why, the Teutonic arrogance!

Tell you what! Let's bring up the Nazis again! Has nothing to do with current economic troubles, but will appeal to irrational people everywhere.

Germans have finally gotten immune to this cheap trick, which dishonors those killed by the Nazis as much as it proves the intellectual dishonesty of those who play it.

Hey! I've got six million corpses here as an argument for this or that economic decision.

 

MORANI YA SIMBA

7:46 PM ET

October 15, 2011

MIDOBSERVER

I am enjoying an intelligent debate in the comments sections except for your comments. "Jews" are NOT "out to get" Germany. In fact, few international relations are more amazing and pregnant with hope, than the close relationship between modern Germany and Israel. It has taken considerable courage from both Israeli and German leaders to forge this relationship from a history so uniquely tragic and hurtful. Your comments are deeply, deeply unfair to Jews. Frankly, shame on you!!

 

ARVAY

6:39 AM ET

October 16, 2011

I'm laughing, MIDOBSERVER

. . . at your labeling me a "typical Zionist-Nazi."

You obviously can't sense sarcasm when you read it.

I detest Zionism, try reading some of my other posts. You obviously didn't read this one very carefully.

 

COMETLINEAR

6:36 PM ET

October 16, 2011

Trolls trolling trolls.

The trolls are turning on each other.

Israel doesn't even have anything to do with this article.

 

ARVAY

4:49 AM ET

October 18, 2011

@ COMETLINEAR

Yada yada yada, anyone who opposes the Israeli thing is a "troll."

Yawn.

 

ZORRO

6:47 AM ET

October 15, 2011

The Long View

A bailout of Greece (or banks) is only in the interest of Germany (the US) if the same problem can be prevented from recurring again and again and again...
Since it seems it can't bailouts are completely irrational.

 

LKK

9:34 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Totally misread.

"But the contrite Germany of the postwar era has been long gone. Since Germany's reunification, the need to atone for Auschwitz has been replaced by the desire to draw a definitive finish line underneath irksome talk of the Third Reich."

I think you're view of a nowadays German society is quite narrow and not very representational, and that is only confirmed by you citing the BILD newspaper apparently as the voice of the German people. Nobody among my peers thinks the Erinnerungskultur is in any way irksome, its quite the contrary (and please dont get me wrong with this): Many of us don't want to know what kind of place and country Germany would be nowadays without the horrors of the past and the subsequent confrontation of the terrible wrongdoings of our grandfathers. This has taught valuable lessons about humanity and the fragility of peace among other things. You might be right that there has been the phenonemon in Germany to dismiss Auschwitz as a "Moralkeule", however, this discussion is an oldy domestically and - although #idonthavethefactstobackthisup - I think the negative stances towards being remembered haven't gotten much more salient than they had been in the mid 90s!. So much for findings about the "new Germany".

In that context you referred to Martin Walser. You should know that at the same occasion Mr. Walser said that any Reference to Auschwitz should not be ABUSED for means of exerting political pressure in fact because of its UNIQUE IMPORTANCE.

Not blindly following the US' lead in the run-up to the war in iraq may have been ONE aspect in the making of the decision not to join the "coalition of the willing", which allowed the Schröder administration to score reelection. But how can you possibly single this out as a determinant of the decision? What about the specifics of a reluctance of Germany to go to war after 45. What about the absence of proofs for the weapons of mass destruction? All this had a much greater influence than some pubertary emancipation reflex. I mean come on..

 

JAMEX

9:59 AM ET

October 15, 2011

European Missconception

Hello, just wanted to put in an Austrian perspective to this Article.

After reading this Article I had the realisation how easy it is to mistake Europe as a unified entity, especially from an outside perspective. The European Parlament has no real powers over each invidiual countries monetary policy, that's why it's so hard to reach concensus.

These "bailouts" for Greece are very, I mean very unpopular with the population. For example you the US were freaking out when the Banks were bailed out, now imagine US was part of EU and has to Bail out "foreign" Banks. Your political parties would go ballistic over it.

That's why in alot of European countries the right political, anti EU spectrum is gaining in polls and votes for years. The right wing in my country is trying to reintroduce border customs, harsher immigration laws, abandoning the Euro Umbrella for countries such as Greece. And it's no suprise because who likes to work just to pay another countries debt.

Please don't bring up the Nazis to explain a simple explanation as to why Germany doesn't like to pay the debts of other Euro States. In the end how can the Author judge Germany when the US was close to defaulting on its own debts just a few Months ago. I know I know it was just political, but what isn't?

 

YOGHURT

10:07 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Mr. MOUNK, that is not honest

This is one of the worst articles I have read in a long time. Just two points:

"The first decisive step in this direction was taken in 1998 by Martin Walser, a famous novelist, when he called Auschwitz a "moral baseball bat" wielded by sinister outsiders intent on harming Germany's interests. Germany's assembled political and cultural elite feted Walser's speech with standing ovations"

I am neither a fan nor a foe of Walser. But one thing is for sure: He never said that. He never talked of "sinister outsiders" nor of his interest in the "german interest" that he saw "harmed". And Walser was not feted with standing ovations, I am sure I can cite a blatant critisism of Walser for every support you can cite. He did call Auschwitz a "moral cudgel" in context of discussions, though: Silencing one's opponent by calling him a nazi.

"The call for a finish line went on to shape Germany's foreign policy. In 2002, struggling with a difficult reelection campaign, then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder decided to exploit his opposition to the Iraq war for electoral gain. His country, he promised, would no longer be America's lapdog; instead, it would go the "German way." Schröder unexpectedly won reelection."

It shows an interseting while sad state of mind to explain Mr. Schröders No to wreak havoc on Irak with his ambitions for the next election. First of all, it's not logical: Schröder had as much to lose from this as to win. I remember much discontent with Schröders decision, and the opposition leader, then Mrs. Merkel, took the unusual step to support the war while staying in the USA. But the really interesting point is that Mr. Mounk seems unable to take this decision for what it is: The right and honest one. Schröder went to Afghanistan with the USA, you should mention that. But not to Irak.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Mounk? Do you think Guantanamo is a nice place? From where did Mr. Hussein get the conventional weapons he had? Where have you been, Mr. Mounk, when the war was declared? It's easy to blame the third (!) german generation after the war, it's more diffucult to stand up oneself. Schröder did, in this case. --

 

NFARIA

10:59 AM ET

October 15, 2011

Inflammatory to say the least

I've been reading Foreign Policy for many years but after reading this article, I had to create an account so I could post my dismay.
This article is one of the worst I've read.

Articles have been published with ideas/arguments that I both agree and disagree. Regardless, FP could be always be proud that the articles were never lacking in substance. Then an article like this comes along...

As an asian canadian living in the Middle East, I only have a bias to the quality of writing FP produces.

 

MBRMARK

3:21 PM ET

October 15, 2011

Bad Article

I completely agree that this was an appalling article.

 

FORLORNEHOPE

11:23 AM ET

October 15, 2011

The real issue

The issue is not about subsidising the Greeks. The real issue is bailing out the French and German banks that are in a mess because of their imprudent lending. Angela and Nicolas are simply being dishonest with their electorates. The only people who can and should be bailing out German banks are German taxpayers. If you should fear Greeks bearing gifts so much more should any sensible banker shut the gates and get back behind the city walls when they come asking for loans.

 

ANTHROPOCENE

12:33 PM ET

October 15, 2011

FP

In the two years I have been reading your magazine this article represents a new low. Is this the sort of garbage that is being squeezed out of Harvard these days? Pitiful.

 

PARACLYTE

1:04 PM ET

October 15, 2011

empathy rather than schadenfreud!

One of the worst articles ever in FP

 

BELISARIUS19

4:05 PM ET

October 15, 2011

Quite a logical leap

It seems very odd to me to say that German reluctance to bailout failing economies in other nations represents a lack of contrition over World War Two and the Holocaust. You may as well say that I - being from a southern state and having a conservative view of economics - am ignoring American slavery, which is a very dark part of my cultural heritage.

No member of the current German government was ever a Nazi, and yet this article seems to imply that they ought to feel guilt for the dark parts of their national history, and therefore subject their national economy to the needs of governments which have mismanaged their own. I simply cannot join the author in the leap from consternation about the Third Reich to the current economic situation.

The legacy of the Third Reich has a place in the German mindset, just as Slavery does to the U.S. mindset, and just as every country's darker era's do. However, that legacy does not, and should not place the financial burden of Europe on the shoulders of Germany.

 

MORANI YA SIMBA

4:31 PM ET

October 15, 2011

First of all thank you to CDOYLE

Also to HURRICANEWARNING. Of course the US is more powerful than Germany and considerably so. But the example you give of the US navy shutting down sea lanes does not give the US that much "actual power" in the form of leverage because that would harm US trade and the US economy at least as much as it would Germany's. Of course, the US could simply intercept German ships but, unless Germany had done something absolutely unexpected and reckless (and, I hasten to say, unimaginable from today's Germany), like supporting terrorists or invading a neighbor, such an act would again harm the US incredibly. The reason is that a lot of America's power rests on the trust other countries have in the US being reasonably "fair" and above all predictable. So other countries would start building far bigger navies of their own if the US suddenly turned on German ships like that, thinking "if the Americans go after the Germans for no obvious reason why not us next?" Of course, Germany would also likely turn to its EU buddies to discuss coordinated EU plans for open sea lanes and while Brits would maybe balk, many others could be receptive. Again, assuming a US administration that seems so crazy to Europeans that Bush II would be positively missed.

This illustrates, to me at least, one underappreciated thing about America's military superiority: it is not that others could not challenge it but that America's stewardship of its role as the military leader of the world has given few countries any strong incentive to do so. Should the US recede into isolationism, it is likely that the EU would take on more characters of an actual "national union" (no doubt w strong provisions for member states to deal w many of their "domestic" affairs by themselves) but where common defense and foreign policy came to the fore, alongside the trade policies that the EU already deals with as one.

And about Russia, it does not have all that much actual power. It cannot use its nukes w/o inviting devastating retaliation or at least isolation for the next 50 years (depending on who it would use them against). It is interesting that even in wars, like Chechnya, or the US in Afghanistan, using nuclear weapons are a complete taboo. And the reason is that even whispering about this would force other countries to acquire the only known defense against nuclear weapons, a second-strike threat of massive retaliation. Therefore the nuclear powers can hardly even talk about their arsenals. And hence those arsenals give then surprisingly little leverage internationally (which is probably the reason why so many countries accept their status as non-nuclear powers; should nuclear powers abuse their status as such, a scramble to mach them is virtually a completely sure thing).

 

NICOLAS19

4:53 AM ET

October 17, 2011

good argument about the evaluation of nuclear capability

The fact that there are numerous nuclear powers in the world makes the use of weapons much more risky than before. In 1945 the US knew that they can drop two nuclear bombs with impunity, because nobody had the capacity to retaliate. If today's Russia, having by far the largest nuclear stockpile in the world would decide to attack Germany with nuclear weapons, it would risk retaliation from at least two directions. Therefore the possession of a nuclear weapon is greatly de-valuated, hardly a sign of greatness anymore (take Korea or Pakistan).

Well, that was just a side-note. I concur with you and many of the others that Germany should not be always judged based on its past. Like it or not, ever since 1860 Germany has been a leader and indispensable operator and guider of Europe. In those rare times when the unified Germany was led by a sane and responsible government (late 1800s) Europe was always on the up. I can't help thinking about whether the EU would be in that bad of a shape if Germany had a proper role in it, complete with German-like regulation and orderliness. The EU was created to contain Germany, therefore the French, Belgians, Brits&Co. had, have way more power than their population/economy/etc. would warrant. A German-led reconstruction of the EU would not certainly be a bad thing.

The last few years I've been spending a lot of time with German youth, and one can clearly see that they are trained well: they are ashamed of themselves, repeating the same guilty lines about their past. This approach has undoubtedly helped to take the edge off Germany's miraculous revival (from destroyed country to first-tier power), but 60 years past one should quit dismissing Germany as no more than a post-nazi country and start considering it as a model to emulate instead.

The article is shallow and superficial, without a doubt. To me, the war argument was the most irritating: it took great courage from Germany to stand up to the US and refuse to partake in an aggressive war. I am pretty sure that the Brits (after the London bombing), the Spanish (after the Madrid bombing) and even the average Americans (with ten years of warfare, no end in sight) wish they followed the German example.

 

FORTUNATESON

6:11 PM ET

October 15, 2011

Bad Science

As a German political scientist I am always interested in FP's Articles featuring my country. But I have to admit that this is by far the worst I have read in FP so far. Since the other commentators have already dealt with the "How the new assertiveness of Germany drives their Foreign Policy" I want to focus on a different aspect: namely that Germany is not willing to use its "cash reserves" to save the Eurozone from disintegrating.

First, Germany hardly has something that could be called "cash reserves". Since the 1980's Germany has been running deficits in their annual budget. In the years prior to the 2008 financial meltdown, that deficit was declining from its peak of 40 bn € a year (2005) but estimates put the structural deficit between 15 and 20 bn. € - and I would call those estimates conservative its probably more around 30 bn. €.
Since the financial crisis the overall debt has increased from 1.4 trillion € to 1.8 trillion €. So much for cash reserves.

What the author calls "cash reserves" is simply the fact that Germany is able to borrow money cheaper than most other countries in the European Union, because its economic outlook is deemed more positive. That means, that Germany just makes more debt in order to support the struggling members of the Eurozone. And this in a time where the German economy was (prior to 2008) just regaining momentum after its stagnation between 2000 and 2005. This momentum was bought with deep cuts to social security (Agenda 2010) which were - to say the least - controversial in German society.

I dont disagree with the author's analysis, that bailing out the struggling countries is in Germany's long term strategic interest, i.e. if these bailouts actually stabilise the financial situation in Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Italy and Spain are a different story.

What the author does not sufficiently adress is the fact - as mentioned by other commentators before - that using the momentum bought with social cuts to bail out the Greek and/or Bank Institutes is something that public opinion in Germany strongly rejects. And by the way, the estimates for the German economy's growth have just been corrected from 3 % to 0.3 % for the last 3-months period.

I could go to lengths about Eurobonds and their inherent risk to the sustainability of reform efforts in the struggling member states, but this topic has been dealt with exhaustively elsewhere.

All in all, this article simply is bad science and does not reflect well on the otherwise good reputation of Foreign Policy.

Greets from Cologne.

 

JORDANC

9:46 PM ET

October 15, 2011

Second the notion

I'd like to second the notion that of all of the years I've spent reading FP, this is probably the worst article I've ever come across. It truly is terrible. There are probably about two paragraphs of intelligent, worthwhile information in this and the rest is utter filth. Step up your game FP.

 

TOPPER52

10:30 PM ET

October 16, 2011

?

I don’t get these comments.

The author’s argument seems pretty straightforward to me. He says its in Germany’s interest to defend the Euro. Fine. He then say there are legitimate reasons why Germans don’t want to foot the bill for Greece. Fine.

He then goes onto say that Germany of yesteryear would feel obligated to be charitable due to feelings of guilt about WWII. Germany no longer feels the need to atone for WWII—and the author does not say it should!!! What he says is Germany is confusing bailing out with Greece for the sake of charity—which it feels it doesn’t owe anyone--- with bailing out Greece for its own interest--- which it should. That this mistake is PART of the explanation of why Germany isn't acting more strongly.

Even if its wrong, it doesn't strike me as CRAZY. Why don’t people respond to that argument instead of hyperventilating about misreadings of an article?

 

ALLSAID

6:21 AM ET

October 20, 2011

Topper52 . . . says > I don’t get these comments.

Apparently he does not.

Another blind one who has all the answers with such repeated typical BS-nonsense . . .
> Germany of yesteryear would feel obligated to be charitable due to feelings of guilt about WWII. < Always using the >guilt card< to remind the Germans to " pay up ", right ?

Again,this blind hypocrite too using the " guilt trip about WWII "- garbage to make
this silly comment > Germany no longer feels the need to atone for WWII—and the author does not say it should!!! . . but he himself > obviously feels Germany should atone for WWII and supports that notion ! Now that`s plain > syco-talk < No wonder he does not get it !

Here is some assistance that will help him remove that ignorance,which should make him see that whole subject matter in the proper perspective.

http://www.rense.com/general45/zzo.htm

 

AMCALABRESE

4:31 AM ET

October 17, 2011

I am an American, so I have

I am an American, so I have no "vote" on the whole Euro-crisis. And as someone who increasingly believes in US non-interventionism (call it isolationism if you want) I think it best to keep the US out of it.

But I can still understand and sympathize with the German position. The war was a long time ago. When the Greeks were first requesting German aid, the Greek argument was boiled down to "Your granddad killed my granddad". Germans are now being asked to reture at 69 so Greek civil servants can retire at 61. I do not blame the Germans for saying no.

 

TEASER38

4:57 AM ET

October 17, 2011

Don't get it...

The point is that Germans are being contrarian to the point of being bad for their self-interest. To their credit, the current Greek government gone a long ways to bringing civil servant compensation in line with the rest of Europe's norms. German banks are completely complicit by buying massive amounts of Greek debt and as stated, Germany has probably gained the most of any Euro zone country.

The Fed has been providing of Trillions of dollars in loans to troubled banks (central and private), so the US has been waste deep in this thing from the beginning.

 

GUNDARICUS

5:04 AM ET

October 17, 2011

The war is over

@Yascha Mounk

Just after the war ended, and Germany was occupied, a quarter of it removed a regime was imposed by the victors that consisted of robbing the Germans of their industries. Merck, the American pharmaceutical company actually is a result of that.

In 1948 The US decided that Germany was punished enough. It's population had suffered enough, there had been hunger, it had lost 10% of its population.

Why then, Yasha, after 66 (!) years, enough time for a German born after the war to be grandfather, do you still want to use the war as a stick for Germany to submit to your wishes? The war is over.

 

YOYOYO

6:19 AM ET

October 17, 2011

Incredibly strange analysis

Dear Yascha,

Don't you think that you overestimate the role of the Second World War as the driving factor behind each German policy decision? What is going on has more to do with Germany trying to avoid a new domestic Italy situation, where the north ends up financing the south.

Sure, Germany could go in and help Italy, Portugal and Spain now - but do they want a situation where they get further and further into an economic system where southern Europe relies on Germany and other northern countries to pay their GDP deficits? Because the south will run deficits for as long as they are in the euro - they simple are not competitive enough to see growth and surpluses unless the euro devaluates significantly (which would in turn disfavour Germany).

The Germans are not too keen on baby sitting Italy in the long run and it has absolutely nothing to do with Auschwitz.

 

WSG

12:16 PM ET

October 17, 2011

Perhaps the author will expand on ideas in a further article?

Too simplistic and an over-reliance on historical tropes Yascha...the point could have been made more subtly, and judging by the comments you've done yourself a disservice - unfortunately by illustrating your argument with stock images you've perhaps come across as more ideologically motivated than is warranted yourself - there are good points in your article but they're rendered invisible by the above. Incidentally, I'd think that Germany's already done rather a lot to bail out the Eurozone...and the opposition to further bailouts is probably being most strongly expressed elsewhere in the electorate and (mostly) outside the Merkel government/cabinet, so ascribing these apparent intentions to 'Merkel and colleagues' seems misguided.

The discussion of 'long-term strategic partners' and raising the issue of power in a military sense (admittedly implicit rather than explicit in your article, but quite conspicuously elaborated on in the comments) is both undiplomatic and actually quite cheap - such efforts only serve as thinly veiled power posturing and open the door to political coercion. Better to stick to the present and only rehash the past where necessary - you can be rest assured that the German people remember it so there's no need to repeat it.

 

ORO36

3:33 PM ET

October 17, 2011

Preposterous

I am German, and as a committed European I am terribly disappointed in the Merkel government's reaction to the crisis. But the reasons given for the German behavior are about as preposterous as they can get. In fact, it is shocking to read dreck like this on Foreign Policy.

If readers want to get a better sense of Germany, the euro, and Europe these days, they should read this very good recent piece by a respected German diplomat who is a staunch transatlanticist:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/germans-love-europe-but-not-the-euro.html

Without getting into all the details that the article gets wrong (some have been mentioned here), there is a single sentence that utterly and definitely disqualifies the author:
"The first decisive step in this direction was taken in 1998 by Martin Walser, a famous novelist, when he called Auschwitz a "moral baseball bat" wielded by sinister outsiders intent on harming Germany's interests. Germany's assembled political and cultural elite feted Walser's speech with standing ovations."
The second sentence is not just completely untrue, it is clearly used with a malicious intent. Walser was very, very strongly criticized by very many important figures in the German elite. Moreover, Walser never put this as an accusation toward "sinister outsiders"
After such a sentence, which is obviously meant to deceive, the author is untrustworthy, period.

 

GRANDEROHO

7:43 PM ET

October 17, 2011

This sort of rhetoric tends

This sort of rhetoric tends to turn more people against a cause than for it, it's selfish and punitive.

 

ARTHURW

12:53 AM ET

October 18, 2011

Massive disservice to the actual issue at hand

Wow, I registered solely for purposes of commenting on this article.

This is one of the most gratuitous and inappropriate invocations of the Nazi Holocaust that I have ever seen. I agree that Germany's response to the Euro zone crisis has been inadequate thus far, but the situation is not even remotely comparable, literally, metaphorically, or otherwise, to that facing Germany or the rest of Europe 70 years ago.

Granderoho has it right, this sort of rhetoric (and the spurious reasoning that accompanies it) tends to lead readers to dismiss your argument. For shame, FP, for publishing this nonsense.

 

RKKA

6:02 AM ET

October 18, 2011

Random25

Russians and Germans made their peace long ago. Russo-German relations are great. The Germans are even building the Russian Army a fully-instrumented training range near Ninzhny-Novgorod.

It's the Angosphere that's still waging WWII against Germany and the Cold War against Russia.

 

ANDREW FROM CANADA

11:28 AM ET

October 18, 2011

Bailouts

So this author thinks the only way forward is bailouts for those who spent lavishly without concern ie. the Greek public. Now that same public is angry at banks. I think the whole liberal elite in this world is consumed by bailouts. He thinks it would be just as bad for Germany to not bail the Greeks out, or the Italians. I think this author also thinks money grows on trees, or on paper anyway. This is real money, bailouts aren't the answer. A capitalist system must have the lows as well as the booms, how do you expect a free market to function correctly if you try to shield yourselves from the worst of it. The problem is liberals who think everybody can be saved by a bailout, Greece now, Italy next, then Portugal, then who Ireland, it will never end if you try to bail everybody out.

 

ANDROID_

3:03 PM ET

October 18, 2011

TO SUM UP THE NAZI BOLLOCKS

Many unfortunate Nazi comparisons have been made already, but the argument presented in Mounk's article is particularly preposterous. Apart from the methodological mess of throwing Nazism and contemporary German financial and foreign policy together, Mounk reveals a remarkable ignorance when getting deeper into the matter.

1.) 'The need to atone for Auschwitz has been replaced by the desire to draw a definitive finish line underneath irksome talk of the Third Reich.'

Wrong. It was even more so after the 1990s and the "Historikerstreit" that German historians turned their attention to the industrialized killings of the Jewish people. Overall, no other country in this world has brought about such a mature and nuanced literature on the Nazi era and the Holocaust as Germany has. On top of that there are no signs whatsoever that suggest that contemporary German political culture would allow for any 'not so sorry any more' feelings for Auschwitz.

2.) The Martin Walser issue is bollocks the way you presented it. Please refer to the other comments that have been posted already.

3. 'His country, he [Schröder] promised, would no longer be America's lapdog; instead, it would go the "German way." Schröder unexpectedly won reelection.'
Jesus. Putting this anecdote in context with Germany's Nazi past, the author clearly suggests that Schröder's 'German way' was in some way related to fascism. I need not comment on that; to any person who is concerned with German politics there cannot be a more ridiculous statement.

All of this under a photo showing marching Nazi soldiers and the 'not so sorry any more' theme. Well done.

Seeing that the Mounk is a scholar at Harvard, I would like to recommend a judicious review of past and contemporary German academic and popular debate on Nazi Germany to the author, written by the British historian Ian Kershaw: 'Der NS-Staat. Geschichtsinterpretationen und Kontroversen im Überblick.' An English translation is available as well in case the author doesn't speak German. But in order to study German politics and popular culture you don't have to do that anyway, right? Sheesh.

 

ANDROID_

3:11 PM ET

October 18, 2011

Kershaw's Book in English

Ian Kershaw
'The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation'
Look for the newest edition.

 

JONNYBOY

5:56 PM ET

October 18, 2011

hmmm

Sorry but your Jewish roots are showing through in this article. You seem quite bitter.

I can see how many Germans would find the content of the article somewhat offensive. I'm American, so I don't think I'm allowed to have much of an opinion on the matter.

I haven't been to Germany in several years, but I would tend to think that the main problem with your article is the premise.

You state, "If Germans were simply acting rationally, they would bail out the euro. The problem, rather, is that the leaders of the new Germany are so mired in an overreaction to the past that they have become blind to their own self-interest."

Maybe I missed them, but forigve me, I did not see any economic credentials next to the author's name. Maybe I'm just not well-informed enough, but I don't recall seeing any concrete evidence that a bail-out is in Germany's self-interest. Even if that were the case, Politicians have accountability to their constituents. If the constituents fail to see how a bail-out is in their self-interest, then supporting such a bail-out would not be a self-interested decision for an elected official.

Yes, Germany's economy relies heavily on exports, and developing strategic partnerships is key to their economic health. Humans in general (at least in my part of the world) have a great inability to think long term. There is something very symbolic about opening the public coffers to support the leisure lifestyle of a country that is viewed as irresponsible. I doubt that an overwhelming number of Germans feel a bail-out would be in the best interest of the economy. I also have not seen any concrete economic analysis to suggest as much.

 

APU2010

9:54 AM ET

October 19, 2011

I think the Germans are

I think the Germans are clever enough to realize the benefits of the Euro, to let it collapse! But that doesn't mean they should write blank cheques to fiscally irresponsible Greece and Italy! The more reluctant the Germans are to bailing out their irresponsible neighbors the more these countries will be forced to put their house in order.
Second, your argument that the Germans need partners for security doesn't quite make sense in relation to its stance on bailing out its neighbors. By your own argument the countries that have the largest military capabilities are not even part of the Eurozone! Besides if Germany would face the problem of terrorism, I think all these three countries would be sympathetic towards the Germans, rather than backing away on the assumption that Germans are selfish and self centered, since all these three countries are fighting terrorism or domestic disturbances in some capacity or the other!

 

THOMASPAYNE77

4:35 PM ET

October 19, 2011

Germany has been at the

Germany has been at the center of European events for centuries, even before WW I and II and before it was a unified country. One thing is for sure, expecting a lone nation to bail out an entire continent is as doomed for disaster as allowing one nation to dominate and conquer an entire continent. web hosting comparison

It's interesting to see people turning to Germany for assistance when this country received so much aid in being rebuilt after the war.

 

PUBLICUS

8:27 AM ET

October 20, 2011

Germany is still for real

Germany is still for real. China is uncomfortable with Germany because Europeans remain uncomfortable about Germans. In Japan Germany remains a delicate matter whether in trade or diplomacy. A decade or so ago, before Germany defeated the UK in a soccer match (football), the word in Britain was "We beat them twice at their best game so we can go at 'em again now." (That the Germany won the match does not lessen the remaining feeling in the UK.) Many of we North Americans remain uncomfortable about Germans to boot as they try to dominate Europe by means of the common currency.

When Pres Clinton and Nato sent troops into Kosovo to stop the genocide of its (Muslim) population the German general who was chairman of the Nato Military Council had to step down from his position as chairman and from the council itself due to the strong reaction among Balkan peoples on either side of the Kosovo vs Belgrade issue against having a German military overseer of the military operation there.

Pres Ronald Reagan caught hell in 1985 when the German CDU Chancellor Herr Kohl demanded Reagan visit a German cemetery in the sleepy hamlet of Bitburg where Waffen SS troops were buried.

Germany remains real, for sure.

The first West German chancellor Konrad Adenhaur consistently cussed the United States in private despite the Marshal Plan of Pres Harry Truman.

Clarence M. Brown, national commander of the American Legion, warned that it would "not sit well" with veterans if Reagan were to "lay a wreath at the graves of Nazi soldiers." Former Army S/Sgt. Jim Hively mailed his World War II decorations, including a silver star and a bronze star, to Reagan in protest. In the Congress, 53 senators, 11 of them Republicans, signed a letter urging the president to cancel the visit, while 257 representatives, including 84 Republicans, signed a letter asking Chancellor Kohl to withdraw the invitation.

Reagan responded candidly: "This visit has stirred many emotions in the American and German people too. Some old wounds have been reopened, and this I regret very much, because this should be a time of healing."

 

1OSCAR

8:09 PM ET

November 1, 2011

I agree with the comments of

I agree with the comments of MORANI YA SIMBA and ANDROID.

YASCHA MOUNK has a view of Germany not quite as strong as that of Daniel Goldhagen in his book HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS but nevertheless quite uninformed of what has been going on in Germany in recent years.

For one, no country has atoned as much for the sins of the past as has Germany. Despite some vociferous deniers of the past for the most part there is an honest effort to atone, unlike almost no effort in the USA to atone for the extermination of the original Americans, one of the first incidents of the most massive ethnic cleansing. Or to atone for the sins of slavery. Not to speak about waging war and killing 60 000 Americans, including a couple of my friends in Vietnam, a real "threat" to the national security of the USA, or the war against Iraq, another no threat - as should be remembered that after the liberation of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was under a "No Fly Zone" which meant constant surveillance by the US Air Force. He could not rise his head withut a bomb being dropped on him.

There is one overriding principle in current German foreign politics - no war, which is understandable when remembering the utter devestation of WWII.

Regarding the issue of atonment, there is a real grass roots project that has spilled over even into other countries, it is called "Stolpersteine". With this project, cobble stones are replaced with small memory plaques in front of houses where Jews and other victims of the Nazis lived before they were deported and murdered. The inscriptions list the names of the victims and their vital data. This is happenening all over Germany - even in small towns.

It must not be forgotten, that the first victims of the Nazis were all those Germans who opposed them - the communists, the socialists, the unions, some of the clergy, the artists and intellectuals, and countless more. They were beaten, imprisoned, and even killed right from the beginning of the Nazi rule in January of 1933. And also not to forget, the Jews in Germany who were persecuted, they were Germans as well. Just like Jews in the USA are Americans.

While many Germans resented the foreign minister casting an abstention at the US Lybia resolution, in retrospect Schroder was right about not joining Bush Jr. in his Iraq blunder.

 

LISAJANE64

7:41 AM ET

November 13, 2011

What's your point?

Mr. Mounk, you have done your homework well with your research, but what exactly is your point here? First, it seems like you're asserting that Germany SHOULD lead a "rescue effort" to salvage the euro. Thorough analysis tells us that bailing out of Greece and other dissolving economies is just a short term solution.

Second, your tone seems to imply that their reluctance to bailout other nations is directly related to their "lack of remorse" over the country's Nazi past. I completely lose you there. There are no Nazis in the present German government, yet this article suggests that they should feel remorse and set aside their national interests to bailout irresponsible economies. You are clearly linking Germany's assertiveness to the Third Reich.

It would be unwise to constantly guilt-trip Germany about its past's horrors to force them to do what other nations want them to, just because of what they did in the past. It's like reminding the United States of Slavery, Dresden, Operation Teardrop, My Lai or Agent Orange just to bailout other economies.

And by the way, FP, using pictures of Nazi soldiers and your misleading headline is downright CHEAP and IMMATURE.

L'Chaim,
Lisa O.