#since today is German reunification day | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

galerymod · 1 year ago

Text

The crisis of the world - 1933 and 2023

Thomas Weber

Memorise content

What does 1933 teach us? If we understand National Socialism as a form of illiberal democracy, we can see that today's variants could easily slide into something worse. Then as now, exaggerated perceptions of crisis play an important role.

In times when several major crises are brewing into what is perceived as an existential poly-crisis, fears of the political consequences of this perception spread. The most spectacular case of the collapse of a democracy - the collapse of the Weimar Republic in January 1933 - is therefore repeatedly scrutinised in the hope of discovering lessons for the present.

A prime example of this in recent years is what has been happening in the United States: since the New York Times columnist Roger Cohen greeted his readers with "Welcome to Weimar America" in December 2015, "Weimerica" has developed into a veritable genre of opinion pieces and books. After the attack on the Capitol in Washington in January 2021, the son of an Austrian SA man also used his fame as a Hollywood actor and former governor of the US state of California to record a video message to the world: In it, Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke about his father and drew direct comparisons between the Reichspogromnacht, the Nazi anti-Jewish pogrom of 9 November 1938, and the situation in the US in early 2021. to resolve the footnote[3]

It is therefore not surprising that Adolf Hitler is more dominant in public discourse today than he was a generation ago. Between 1995 and 2018, the frequency with which Hitler was mentioned in English-language books rose by an astonishing 55 per cent. In Spanish-language books, the frequency even increased by more than 210 per cent in the same period. To break up the footnote[4] This increase is a result of both a growing perception of crisis and another phenomenon: an awareness of how much the world we live in today can be traced back directly and indirectly to the horrors of the "Third Reich" and the Second World War.

But the world that emerged in 1933 is not invoked everywhere in order to understand and interpret today's situation. Strangely enough, one country in the heart of Europe has taken a different direction: Germany itself. Here, the frequency with which Hitler was mentioned in books fell by more than two thirds between 1995 and 2018. The same trend applies to other terms that refer to the darkest chapter of Germany's past, such as "National Socialism" and "Auschwitz". To resolve the footnote[5] However, a declining interest in National Socialism should not lead to the false assumption that today's Germany is less strongly characterised by the legacy of the "Third Reich" and the horror that the Germans spread throughout Europe. The legacy of National Socialism defines who the Germans are, and has done so since the day Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor in January 1933.

New "special path"

In Germany, there was probably not so much explicit publicity about National Socialism because it was believed that the country had learnt from the past and built an exemplary political system with a corresponding society that had internalised the lessons of National Socialism. The prevailing narrative of the early Berlin Republic was that Germany had taken a "special path" towards dictatorship and genocide in the 19th and early 20th centuries. With reunification in 1990, however, the country had finally left this path and had fully arrived in the West. To resolve the footnote[6] According to this interpretation, the Berlin Republic was a new player in international politics, working side by side with its partners in Europe and the world to secure peace and stability at home and abroad.

However, the varying frequency with which Hitler, Auschwitz and National Socialism are referred to in books in Germany and abroad shows that Germany did not abandon its special path in 1990, but rather embarked on a new one. Germany's actual special path is that of its second (post-war) republic, which was founded in 1990 and, if one follows the argumentation of journalist and historian Nils Minkmar, collapsed in the wake of Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine. Germany's second republic, writes Minkmar, "took a holiday from history, was finally able to enjoy the moment like Faust and, also like Faust, made a pact - with Putin and with bad consequences". To resolve the footnote[7] However, Germany's holiday from history came to an abrupt end with the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In the words of Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz: "24 February 2022 marks a turning point in the history of our continent." To resolve the footnote[8] Scholz is right when he speaks of a turning point, but it does not primarily concern "our continent", but first and foremost his own country. The Russian invasion of Ukraine made many Germans suddenly aware of the realities of international politics that had been present to Germany's neighbours for some time.

The Faustian pact was not born of malice - Germany's second republic had been founded and governed with the best of intentions. Rather, a certain short-sightedness had prevailed that prevented many Germans from seeing what many of their international partners had long recognised after Russia's previous invasions or the shooting down of MH17 - the Malaysia Airlines plane that was shot down by a Russian missile in Ukrainian airspace on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur in July 2014. And this short-sightedness is closely linked to the normative conclusions that the protagonists of the Second German Republic had drawn from the country's experience with National Socialism, which differed quite drastically from those drawn by other countries.

As a result, many Germans relied on soft power and had little interest in hard power - without realising that the former is just hot air if it is not accompanied by the latter. At the same time, many failed to recognise that Putin's aggressive approach since the day he took office was in line with earlier phases of Russian history. This is also reflected in a sharp decline in references in German-language publications to terms associated with the dark side of Russia's past, such as "Gulag", "Stalin", "Prague Spring" or "popular uprising". Dissolving the footnote[9] In English-language books, the number of mentions of the terms "Stalin" and "Prague Spring" remained relatively constant between 1995 and 2018, while mentions of the "Gulag" actually increased significantly. Resolution of the footnote[10]

The illusions that were harboured in Germany ultimately stood in the way of both even more successful European integration and the creation of an even more durable security and peace architecture. Minkmar therefore believes that a third republic must emerge from the ruins of the second: one that takes a less short-sighted view of the world around it and leaves behind the "naivety" of thinking about the world. To resolve the footnote[11] It is therefore necessary to work out lessons from the "Third Reich" for the third republic.

Historical misunderstandings

However, the myopic view of the past is not limited to Germany. In fact, many of the lessons learnt worldwide from 1933 for crisis management in the 2020s are based on historical misunderstandings. For example, although there are countless books about the "Third Reich" and its horrors, in many cases, and without realising it, they reproduce clichés dating back to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, or they portray Hitler and the National Socialists only as madmen driven by hatred, racism and anti-Semitism. However, such approaches will never understand why so many supporters of National Socialism saw themselves as idealists. And they will not be able to explain why, according to Hitler, reason, not emotion, should determine the actions of National Socialism. On the resolution of the footnote[12]

A reductionist approach to the question of what characterised Hitler and other National Socialists is dangerous. It tempts us to look for false warning signs in today's world and to search for Hitler revenants and National Socialists in the wrong places. We are therefore recommended to read Thomas Mann's essay "Brother Hitler" from 1938, in which he portrays the dictator as a product of the same traditions in which he himself had grown up. In doing so, he opens our eyes to the realisation that it is not the angry crybabies, but above all people "like us" who are open to dismantling democracy in times of crisis. In fact, as soon as we take the ideas of the National Socialists seriously, it becomes disturbingly clear that many people supported these policies in the period from the 1920s to the 1940s for almost the same reasons that we so vehemently reject National Socialism today - not least the conviction that political legitimacy should come from the people and that equality is an ideal worth fighting for.

It is therefore important to dispel various misconceptions about the death of democracy in 1933 that are still taught in German schools today, including the idea that the seeds of Weimar's self-destruction were sown as early as 1919, that the "unstable Weimar constitution (.... ) ultimately led to the self-dissolution of the first German democracy", that "coalitions capable of governing [became] impossible because there were too many splinter parties", On the dissolution of the footnote[13] that the rise of Hitler resulted from the strength of the German conservatives, that the world economic crisis played the decisive role in the death of German democracy, that Germans supported the National Socialists, because they longed for the return of the authoritarian state of the past and rejected democracy in any form, or that the actions of the National Socialists did little to bring Hitler to power - which is evident, for example, in the tendency to speak only of a "transfer of power" in relation to the events of 1933 and not of a process that was both a "transfer of power" and a "seizure of power". On the resolution of the footnote[14]

The beliefs of the National Socialists and the appeal of their ideas cannot be understood if we do not take seriously the central apparent contradictions at the core of National Socialism, namely that the National Socialists destroyed democracy and socialism in the name of overcoming an all-encompassing, existential mega-crisis and creating a supposedly better and truer democracy and socialism. The National Socialists preached that all power must come from the people, not out of insincere and opportunistic Machiavellianism, but because they believed it. The promise of a National Socialist illiberal "people's community democracy" as a collectivist and marginalising concept of self-determination was widely accepted and promised to overcome what was supposedly the greatest crisis in centuries. This made 1933 possible and ultimately brought the world to the gates of hell.

So if we understand National Socialism as a manifestation of illiberal democracy, we see that today's variants of illiberal democracy could very easily slide into something much worse in times of crisis than we are currently experiencing in many places around the world. If we refrain from a reductionist account of National Socialism, we will recognise that the parallels between the present and the past lie primarily in the dangers posed by illiberal democracy and the general perception of crisis.

Furthermore, if we understand National Socialism as a political religion, we can understand why Germans followed its siren song en masse. Hitler's political religion demanded a double commitment from converts: firstly, to National Socialist orthodoxy - adherence to 'correct' beliefs and the practice of rituals - and secondly, to National Socialist orthopraxy - the 'ethical' behaviour prescribed by orthodoxy. In this way, acts of violence and war against internal and external "enemies of the people" were given a moral and even heroic significance - because they supposedly served a "higher" purpose, the good of one's own "national community". The belief systems of National Socialism are therefore inextricably linked to the violence and horrors of the "Third Reich". In other words, while it may well be true that liberal democracy brings with it a "peace dividend", illiberal democracy - at least in its totalitarian, messianic incarnations - can easily generate a "genocide and war dividend" if people believe they can overcome an existential crisis in this way.

Just as the National Socialist mindset should be taken seriously as a key driver of violent and extreme behaviour, the National Socialists themselves should also be understood as political actors with a clear plan for the future. Although it often looked as if they were merely reacting to others, it was precisely this reactive character of National Socialist behaviour that was a tactic - and a very successful one at that - that explains not only the developments in 1933, but also the dynamics of twelve years of Nazi rule. The path from the seizure of power to the settlement policy in the East, to total war and to a war policy of extermination and genocide was by no means long and tortuous - in the self-perception of its actors, it was the path to overcoming an existential polycrisis.

What does 1933 teach us?

The way in which the National Socialists succeeded in seizing and consolidating power and ultimately pursuing radical policies has more in common with the cunning of Frank Underwood, the fictional US president from the Netflix series "House of Cards", than with many of the portrayals that question whether their rise was coolly calculated. The political style and the illusion game of the National Socialists, the undermining and destruction of norms and institutions as well as the pursuit of a hidden agenda are increasingly becoming characteristics of politics in our time as well. Understanding the year 1933 should therefore help us to better understand today's challenges.

We therefore need a defensive democracy with strong guard rails in order to be able to counter the perception of an existential polycrisis. This includes strong party-political organisations that - unlike in daydreams of the transformation of parties into "movements" - prevent the internal takeover by radicals. Crucially, strong party structures also provide a toolkit to deal with polarised societies by both representing and containing divisions. The behaviour of conservative parties is particularly important here. German conservatism played a central role in the fall of Weimar democracy, but in a counter-intuitive way, not through its strength but through its weakness and the fragmentation of its organisations.

However, guard rails offer little or no protection if they are poorly positioned. Thus, a look beyond Germany reveals that in trying to make our own democracy weatherproof and crisis-resistant, we may have more to learn from cases where democracy survived in 1933 than from the death of democracy in Germany. The Netherlands, for example, had established a resilient political structure, or a defencible democracy avant la lettre, capable of dealing with a wide range of shocks to its system and responding flexibly to crises. As a result, the Dutch did not need to anticipate the specific threats of 1933, as their crisis prevention and response capacities were large enough to avoid the establishment of a domestic dictatorship. The comparison also shows that some supposed guard rails of today's democracy in Germany - such as the five per cent hurdle in elections - are largely useless and only appear to offer security.

The problem of looking at specific cases of the collapse of democracy, including the German case in 1933, harbours a danger: that the most important variables are insufficiently recognised and too narrow conclusions are drawn. The exact historical context of the collapse of a political order will always vary, as will the perception of an existential polycrisis and its political consequences. It therefore makes sense to identify states and societies from the past that were resilient to the widest possible range of shocks. Or as historian Niall Ferguson puts it: "All we can learn from history is how to build social and political structures that are at least resilient and at best antifragile (...), and how to resist the siren voices that propose totalitarian rule or world government as necessary for the protection of our unfortunate species and our vulnerable world." To resolve the footnote[15]

Nevertheless, the fall of the Weimar Republic in 1933 is a warning of where uncontained perceptions of crisis can lead. After all, it was Hitler's polycrisis consciousness and the associated individual and collective existential fear that formed the core of the emergence of Hitler's political and genocidal anti-Semitism. Added to this was the identification of the Jews with this crisis and the implementation of this identification in a programme of total solutions in order to "protect" themselves permanently. To resolve the footnote[16]

Perhaps the most important warning that the past century holds for us is that the biggest and most terrible crises in the world only arise when we try to contain real or perceived crises headlessly and without moderation. To resolve the footnote[17]

This article is a revised extract from Thomas Weber (ed.), Als die Demokratie starb. Die Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten - Geschichte und Gegenwart, Freiburg/Br. 2022.

Footnotes

On the mention of the footnote [1]

Roger Cohen, Trump's Weimar America, 14 Dec 2015, External link:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/opinion/weimar-america.html.

For the mention of the footnote [2]

Niall Ferguson, "Weimar America"? The Trump Show Is No Cabaret, 6 Sept. 2020, External link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/weimar-america-the-trump-show-is-no-cabaret/2020/09/06/adbb62ca-f041-11ea-8025-5d3489768ac8_story.html.

On the mention of the footnote [3]

Cf. Thomas Weber, Trump Is Not a Fascist. But That Didn't Make Him Any Less Dangerous to Our Democracy, 24.1.2021, external link:https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/24/opinions/trump-fascism-misguided-comparison-weber/index.html.

On the mention of the footnote [4]

Cf. Google N-gram analyses for "Hitler" and "Auschwitz" in English and Spanish, created on 10 August 2022: External link:https://t1p.de/ngramspanish and External link:https://t1p.de/ngramenglish.

For the mention of the footnote [5]

Cf. Google N-gram analyses for "Hitler", "Auschwitz" and "National Socialism" in German, created on 10 January 2022: External link:https://t1p.de/ngramgerman.

On the mention of the footnote [6]

Cf. Heidi Tworek/Thomas Weber, Das Märchen vom Schicksalstag, 8 November 2014, External link:http://www.faz.net/13253194.html.

On the mention of the footnote [7]

Nils Minkmar, Long live the Third Republic, 10 May 2022, External link:http://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/kultur/e195647.

Mention of the footnote [8]

Government statement by Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz, 27 February 2022, External link:http://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/suche/regierungserklaerung-von-bundeskanzler-olaf-scholz-am-27-februar-2022-2008356.

Mention of the footnote [9]

Cf. Google N-gram analyses for "Stalin", "Gulag", "Prager Frühling" and "Volksaufstand" in German, created on 10 August 2022: External link:https://t1p.de/ngramstalingerman and External link:https://t1p.de/ngramgulagpfvgerman.

For the mention of the footnote [10]

Cf. Google N-gram analyses for "Stalin", "Gulag" and "Prague Spring" in English, created on 10 August 2022: External link:https://t1p.de/ngramstalinenglish and External link:https://t1p.de/ngramgulagpsenglish.

On the mention of the footnote [11]

See Minkmar (note 7).

On the mention of the footnote [12]

In his first known written anti-Semitic statement - the so-called Gemlich letter of 1919 - Hitler rejected "anti-Semitism on purely emotional grounds" and advocated an "anti-Semitism of reason". Cf. Hitler to Adolf Gemlich, 16 September 1919, reproduced in: German Historical Institute Washington DC, German History in Documents and Images, n.d., external link:https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/deu/NAZI_HITLER_ANTISEMITISM1_DEU.pdf.

On the mention of the footnote [13]

Cf. Fabio Schwabe, Gründe für das Scheitern der Weimarer Republik, 12 March 2021, external link:http://www.geschichte-abitur.de/weimarer-republik/gruende-fuer-das-scheitern.

On the mention of the footnote [14]

Cf. Hans-Jürgen Lendzian (ed.), Zeiten und Menschen. Geschichte, Qualifikationsphase Oberstufe Nordrhein-Westfalen, Braunschweig 2019, pp. 237-264; Ulrich Baumgärtner et al. (eds.), Horizonte. Geschichte Qualifikationsphase, Sekundarstufe II Nordrhein-Westfalen, Braunschweig 2015, pp. 242-270.

On the mention of the footnote [15]

Niall Ferguson, Doom. The Politics of Catastrophe, London 2022, p. 17, own translation.

On the mention of the footnote [16]

Cf. Thomas Weber, Germany in Crisis. Hitler's Antisemitism as a Function of Existential Anxiety and a Quest for Sustainable Security, in: Antisemitism Studies (n.d.).

On the mention of the footnote [17]

Cf. Beatrice de Graaf, Crisis!, Amsterdam 2022.

#Creative Commons Licence #CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DE #Thomas Weber #bpb.de #Germany 1933 #weimar #weimar America #stop violence #stop trump #save our democracy #vote democrat #vote blue #please vote #Weimerica #Roger Cohen #read more

10 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 11 months ago

Text

Daniela Klette lived quietly. She walked her dog and gave maths tuition to her neighbours’ children.

But when she was arrested in late February, the police found tens of thousands of euros in cash in her Berlin flat and five weapons, among them a Kalashnikov assault rifle and a replica rocket launcher.

Klette, 65, had been on the run for more than 30 years. She was wanted for crimes connected to the left-wing militant Red Army Faction (RAF), which was active in Germany from the 1970s to the 1990s.

Known in its early days as the Baader Meinhof group, the gang pursued their political aims through the kidnap or murder of senior members of the business and industrial communities.

The RAF’s notoriety had led to a podcast team in Berlin trying to track Klette down using a facial recognition tool.

The podcast ran shortly before Christmas, only weeks before the arrest. But police deny a connection. They say they had a tip-off from a member of the public.

The RAF’s crimes are not forgotten in Germany, even if a generation has passed since they were committed.

They continue to exercise the imaginations of film and television producers, who have been making high-budget drama and documentary series that recall the assassinations of the 1980s and 90s.

“The RAF is deeply rooted in the collective memory, at least in western Germany,” says Petra Terhoeven, an expert in the history of political violence at Göttingen University.

Later this year, for example, German television will run a new four-part drama about Alfred Herrhausen, the head of Deutsche Bank, who was murdered shortly after the opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989. A sophisticated roadside bomb destroyed his armoured Mercedes as he was being driven to work.

In 2020 the first Netflix original series for the German market, A Perfect Crime, examined the assassination of Detlev Rohwedder. He was the head of the Treuhandanstalt, the organisation established after German reunification to privatise all state-owned industry in the former East Germany.

Rohwedder was killed by a shot from a sniper’s rifle through an upstairs window at his home in Düsseldorf in the spring of 1991.

In neither case have the perpetrators been caught.

The Netflix series was made by the Beetz Brothers production company. Recalling its origins, co-director Georg Tschurtschenthaler says the brief was to find a project that the whole country would talk about. “It had to be big and relevant,” he says. “It had to create some noise.”

A Perfect Crime, while acknowledging the letter found at the crime scene in which the RAF claimed responsibility for Rohwedder’s murder, presents a number of different scenarios as to who may have killed him. For Tschurtschenthaler the background to the murder is what matters – the rapid closure of much of East German industry and the loss of millions of jobs.

“It’s a dark period that resonates until today,” he says.

Petra Terhoeven, the historian, warns of the dangers of a trivialisation of the crimes committed by the RAF. She detects too great a focus on the perpetrators, too little consideration for the victims.

The victim who has received perhaps most attention is Alfred Herrhausen, a charismatic and influential banker and a personal friend of then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl. A new documentary will accompany the four-part television drama later this year. Herrhausen has also been portrayed in fiction, by the writer Tanja Langer.

“When I was writing my novel it was important for me to create an homage to this person,” she says of her book. The novel, an account of a relationship between a young woman and an older man, a banker, is written from personal experience. Langer and Herrhausen had a close friendship for several years until his death.

Even though the RAF claimed responsibility for Herrhausen’s murder, Tanja Langer thinks the truth may not be as simple. She did several years’ research for her novel and spent a lot of time in the archive of the former East German secret police, the Stasi.

“In the end my conclusion was that even if the RAF carried out the murder, maybe there were others that were also part of it,” she says.

It’s that uncertainty, in part, that fuels the continued interest. There are still many unsolved murders from the 1980s and it’s possible that Daniela Klette, now behind bars, knows something about them.

Not long before she was arrested, a podcast company in Berlin, Undone, set out to find her. They had been contacted by a listener who said he’d been at a party where a woman had claimed to be Klette.

“It was a crazy story,” says Patrick Stegemann, who worked on the series.

Undone brought in an AI expert who deployed facial recognition software to search the internet for pictures that matched one of Klette on an old “Wanted” poster. It came up with a match for a woman living as “Claudia” not far from where the podcasters operate out of an old industrial premises in Berlin. But when they went to look for her, she was nowhere to be found.

Two months later, when Daniela Klette, was arrested, it became clear that they had identified the right woman. Patrick Stegemann remembers hearing the news of the arrest. “It was a wild mixture of feelings,” he says.

Prosecutors are currently going through dozens of boxes of evidence and are yet to bring charges against Klette.

Petra Terhoeven is sceptical she will offer any help.

“The majority of former members of the RAF don't speak about the past,” she says. “It’s like a political sect, it’s a kind of cartel of silence. And so probably she will remain silent.”

#nunyas news

5 notes · View notes

bopinion · 6 months ago

Text

2024 / 45

Aperçu of the week

"Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet."

(Ronald Reagan, actor and US-American politician of the Republican Party who served as the 40th president of the United States from 1981 to 1989)

Bad News of the Week

What has the self-luminous circulation guidance system not been used for: traffic lights. Because of them, we associate green with go and red with stop (and yellow with attention). Parties are also often associated with colors. So it's no wonder that the coalition of Social Democrats (red), Liberals (yellow) and Greens (guess what!) was also called "traffic lights coalition". "Was" because the traffic light has been history since last week. This is because the red Chancellor Olaf Scholz kicked the yellow Finance Minister Christian Lindner out of the cabinet. Whereupon the Liberals (naturally) left the coalition.

Since then, the term "Broken traffic light" has been used. Which sounds just as uncharming as a traffic accident. The traffic lights had been crunching for some time. This coalition was never a love match. Many political observers saw the end coming, there was talk of an "autumn of decisions". It should be noted that Olaf Scholz's last political job was finance minister (under the conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel). And both the very former and the recently former finance ministers have always agreed on one thing: that they think they are by far the smartest in the room. No wonder that the final stumbling block was a financial one, namely the budget.

"The government is finished and will no longer govern. That sounds insultingly banal, but because the last time a coalition broke up was 42 years ago and the last time the legislature was shortened was 20 years ago, it's a big deal when it happens," writes the news magazine Der Spiegel. This is why a cold, paralyzing fog has descended over the country just in time for the appropriate season - there is a standstill. The early elections are scheduled for February 23, 2025. Until then, the legislative apparatus will be largely dormant, as there seems to be no will to cooperate across party lines. And any new government must first find itself (it will be a coalition again) will first need time to define a program and put it into legislation.

Germany currently has no budget plan for 2025. In the USA, such a status would probably lead to a complete government shutdown. Fortunately, it cannot get that far in this country. Nevertheless, there will be virtually no government action. For minimum half a year. In the world's third-largest economy. At a time when we are sliding into recession. If someone had asked me the week before last to draw up a horror scenario for the near future, this is pretty much what I would have come up with. Not good.

Good News of the Week

The Berlin Wall came down 35 years ago. Euphoria is certainly not a typical trait that can be attributed to Germans. And yet it was the predominant feeling that we otherwise only know from winning a soccer championship. In Berlin, strangers hugged each other, cheered and sang together. After the first tentative rapprochement - the escape of around 4,000 GDR citizens via the West German embassy in Prague - this marked the beginning of what had seemed impossible shortly before: the end of the Cold War.

The so-called fall of the Berlin Wall was the starting signal for German reunification, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or to put it another way: the West finally triumphed over the East. Which was, of course, presumptuous and arrogant at the time and proved to be a fatal historical blunder. After all, there would be no Vladimir Putin today, tearing apart a former brother nation, or a Viktor Orbán, who created the guide "How to create an autocracy in a democracy", if "the West" had not only opened the door to the Eastern Europeans, but also extended a hand.

Nevertheless, the day the Wall fell is and was a day of joy. The Wall did not actually fall on that day. Rather, thousands of East Berliners spontaneously set off to visit the West when Günter Schabowski, Secretary for Information, more or less coincidentally announced in a televised press conference that lighter travel restrictions would apply "immediately, without delay". And the officers on guard duty in the completely uninformed border troops had the sense not to shoot at the masses of people coming towards them, but simply to hold back. In the weeks-long party that followed, the Wall actually fell piece by piece - by diggers as well as souvenir hunters with hammers and chisels.

And even if the achievements of this liberation at the beginning of the 1990s are questioned by one or two politicians and not recognized or even forgotten by one or two voters, this does not change the basic principle: it was a liberation. You can give it up again of your own free will. But at least you held it in your hand once. After all, a real democracy can only abolish itself.

Personal happy moment of the week

Breaking News: I broke a rib. I won't tell you how, just this much: it wasn't anything heroic like "You should see the other guy!". Fortunately, the broken rib stayed in place and didn't damage my lungs or any other organ. Now I'll only be in pain for a good four weeks (I can't stop breathing obviously) and I won't sleep well because I'm bound to move the wrong way unconsciously. But still: that qualifies for a lucky moment. Not a happy one, okay...

I couldn't care less...

...that many criticize the credibility of an environmental summit in a fossil fuel exporting country. The main thing is that COP29 takes place. Because the EU climate change service Copernicus has just issued a forecast: 2024 is likely to be the first year since records began in which the average temperature will be more than 1.5 degrees warmer than the pre-industrial average. This is the defined maximum level of global warming in order to still have a chance of avoiding radical tipping points in the global climate. If there are (or should be, let's be realistic) tangible successes, someone who actually contributes too little to this can proudly announce them in the Azerbaijani capital Baku: autocrat Ilham Heydar oglu Aliyev.

It's fine with me...

...that the Self-Determination Act is now officially in force in Germany. This means that fellow human beings who were born in the wrong body finally have exactly that: the right to self-determination. Without shameful questioning, expensive expert opinions and lengthy bureaucracy. In this case, thanks to Justice Minister Marco Buschmann, who is no longer in office as a Liberal minister (see "Broken traffic light").

Post Scriptum

Okay, I held out ignoring the elephant in the room until the last column. But now it has to come out: a majority of the US electorate has decided to give Donald Trump a second term. Despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that he didn't mince his words. Because they knew exactly which personality with which values would get the keys to the White House. You don't even have to read the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" to find out, just listen to Trump himself. As tech billionnaire Peter Thiel famously put it eight years ago: You have to take Trump seriously but not literally.

This was almost a landslide victory: Trump not only took the majority of electoral votes by a large margin, but also won the popular vote. The Republicans have already won the majority in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives is practically guaranteed. With the Supreme Court already in their pocket, this is an unprecedented concentration of power. The dust has not yet settled. And I still don't know exactly how to categorize some aspects of it. So here is a loose collection of my thoughts and those of others.

"Of course I had suspected it, not only feared it, but deep down even knew that it would happen again. But you can still hope, against all odds. What else can you do? We had no choice. We are just spectators." Stefan Kuzmany in Der Spiegel.

The first personnel decisions about Trump's possible cabinet are making the rounds, with only Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley being ruled out so far. Conspiracy theorist and avowed anti-vaccinationist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is to take charge of health. And Elon Musk is to become head of a still not existing economic commission. And announces that he could easily cut the entire state budget by 2 trillion - that's almost a third. As head of a Department of Government Efficiency he promises no less than "fixing the government". Perhaps most glaring, however, is the choice of Fox News host Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense - who has no administrative, political or national security experience. But seemes to be a sexist asshole.

Election winner Trump is the first US president to enter the White House as a convicted felon. The sentence was due to be announced at the end of November. What will become of it - and of the other criminal proceedings against him? Nothing, of course. He can simply order the termination of some proceedings by having the Department of Justice fire the responsible special investigator. And others will simply be suspended until the President is no longer sitting. Doesn't that sound more like a Banana Republic?

"The racist, agitator and misogynist Donald Trump returns to the White House. A disaster - to which we in Germany are not immune. (...) You are probably just as stunned as I am: Donald Trump becomes US president again. A fascist. A liar and demagogue. And one who announces in no uncertain terms what he intends to do: rebuild and destroy the oldest democracy much more extensively and systematically than in his unprepared first term." Christoph Bautz, Chairman of the democratic activist association Campact.

"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they're right." Bernie Sanders (who is officially an independent senator) on Twitter (I still refuse to call it X).

1 note · View note

biblenewsprophecy · 8 months ago

Text

Shifts in Germany and elsewhere in Europe

COGwriter

A shift is happening in Europe.

Many there are concerned about Islam and migrants.

Germany’s Alternative für Deutshland (AfD) party continues to increase in popularity and looks to soon have more political clout:

Germany far-right party could win first state in eastern regional elections

September 1, 2024

BERLIN, Sept 1 (Reuters) – Germans were voting in two eastern states on Sunday, with the far-right AfD on track to win a state election for the first time and Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition set to receive a drubbing just a year before federal elections.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is polling first on 30% in Thuringia and is neck-and-neck with the conservatives in Saxony on 30-32%. A win would mark the first time a far-right party has the most seats in a German state parliament since World War Two.

The 11-year-old party would be unlikely to be able to form a state government even if it does win, as it is polling short of a majority and other parties refuse to collaborate with it.

But a strong showing for the AfD and another populist party, the newly-created Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), named after its founder, a former communist, would complicate coalition building. …

Both the AfD and BSW are anti-migration, eurosceptic, Russia-friendly and are particularly strong in the former Communist-run East, where concerns about a cost of living crisis, the Ukraine war and immigration run deep.

A deadly stabbing spree linked to Islamic State 10 days ago in the western German city of Solingen stoked concerns about immigration in particular and criticism of the government’s handling of the issue.

“Our freedoms are being increasingly restricted because people are being allowed into the country who don’t fit in,” the AfD’s leader in Thuringia, Bjoern Hoecke, told a campaign event in Nordhausen …

‘POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE’

All three parties in Scholz’s federal coalition are seen losing votes on Sunday, with the Greens and liberal Free Democrats likely to struggle to reach the 5% threshold to enter parliament.

Discontent with the federal government stems partly from the fact it is an ideologically heterogeneous coalition plagued by infighting. A rout in the East will only exacerbate those tensions, analysts say.

“The state elections… have the potential to trigger an earthquake in Berlin,” Wagenknecht told a campaign rally in Erfurt, the capital of Thuringia,…

The AfD and BSW together are expected to take some 40-50% of the vote in the two states compared with 23-27.5% at a national level, laying bare the continuing divide between East and West more than 30 years after reunification. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/far-right-could-win-first-state-two-east-german-elections-2024-09-01/

The AfD is considered Germany’s anti-migrant party. Its influence has been growing as more in Germany have been supporting it in elections. The fact that the Islamic State took credit for the stabbing (see Suspected Islamic terrorism hitting France and Germany–‘Islamic State’ claims involvement) reinforces the AfD view that migrants from the Middle East and Africa are a danger.

And yes, it wants many migrants–particularly Islamic ones–to leave Germany.

But Germany is not the only nation in Europe shifting on migrants.

A reader tipped me off to the following today related to Sweden:

The Swedish government is considering offering foreigners who become naturalized citizens money to leave the country. The current “voluntary remigration“ scheme offers 10,000 Swedish kroner ($960) per adult and 5,000 kroner ($480) per child, as well as travel costs for refugees and migrants to leave Sweden.

Stockholm is considering widening the program under which migrants struggling to integrate into Swedish society are encouraged to leave, including naturalized Swedes and migrant families, according to a proposal submitted to Swedish Immigration Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard on Aug. 13.

A report based on an inquiry recommended widening the proposal but rejected increasing the grant in case it sends a signal to immigrants that “they are not welcome in Sweden.” Ministers in Stockholm had sought advice on how emigration could be “greatly stimulated.” https://prescottenews.com/2024/08/19/sweden-considers-offering-naturalized-citizens-money-to-return-to-countries-of-origin-the-epoch-times/

The AfD has suggested an involuntary program to move migrants out of Germany.

Notice also the following related to Sweden:

Europe’s lefties bash migrants (nearly) as well as the hard right

As Europe faced a sharp rise in the arrival of migrants seeking asylum in 2015, many national governments demanded more be done to stem the flow. Sweden’s prime minister disagreed. “My Europe does not build walls,” Stefan Lofven, leader of the Social Democrats, thundered in response, exuding the high-mindedness left-wingers muster at will. A couple of electoral setbacks later—it turns out voters are rather keen on walls during migration crises—the party is speaking from a different register, this time as an opposition force. “The Swedish people can feel safe in the knowledge that Social Democrats will stand up for a strict migration policy,” Magdalena Andersson, its current leader, said in an interview to a local paper … https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/08/29/europes-lefties-bash-migrants-nearly-as-well-as-the-hard-right

When my wife and I visited Sweden several years ago, we found that Swedes were getting concerned about the migrant matters there. Now, some steps to remove and restrict them have begun.

Pope Francis decried anti-migrant moves last week, yet made his own last Fall (see Pope Francis’ hypocrisy on migrants and wealth).

The Bible also shows that religion will be used by the coming European King of the North:

36 “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. 37 He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. 39 Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain. (Daniel 11:36-39)

The King of the North Beast will also push out Islam (cf. Daniel 11:40-43) and lead a powerful European military (cf. Revelation 13:3-4; Daniel 11:39-43). These are things that many in Europe want!

While the AfD has its own problems, its rise is demonstrating that Germans are becoming less tolerant of migrants than many thought.

A while back, we put out the following video:

youtube

14:22

AfD: Prelude to a Hitler Beast?

Germany’s Alternative für Deutshland (Alternative for Germany in English) party celebrated its 10th anniversary on February 6, 2023.

It objects to: ❌More illegal migration ❌More asylum abuse ❌More crime ❌More housing shortage ❌More Cancel Culture

The AfD also asserts, “Now it’s time to change that. And that’s only possible with us.” Many are concerned that the AfD’s growing political influence will impact Germany. Can a strong man worse than Adolf Hitler, that the Bible calls the Beast rise up from Germany? Could Europe reorganize with a small backing to put this leader into place? Does the AfD want to make a deal with Russia? Will Germany make a future deal with Russia that would be opposed to the USA? Does the AfD want religion involved to meet its objectives in such a way that it could support the coming King of the North Beast power that the Bible warns will arise in Europe? Could Europe unite under such a leader according to scripture? Steve Dupuie and Dr. Thiel go over these matters.

Here is a link to our video:��AfD: Prelude to a Hitler Beast?

Ireland has has migrant concerns (see ZH: ‘Irish People Are Being Attacked’ – Anti-Immigrant Riots Erupt After Dublin Stabbing Spree). As has Italy (e.g. Fox: Italy’s call for naval blockade may be only way to stem Europe’s migrant crisis, expert says) and France (e.g. Macron warns against ‘extremes,’ while Le Pen vows to deport Islamic extremists from France).

Related to Italy, notice also the following:

Italy’s Meloni Scores a Victory on Illegal Immigration as the Rest of Europe Is Reeling

The lack of a crisis is largely due to a can-do prime minister who campaigned on getting migration under control.

August 28, 2024

Impounding of MSF’s ship for 60 days is 23rd seizure of a vessel by Giorgia Meloni’s government … illegal arrivals have fallen by 65% https://www.nysun.com/article/italys-meloni-scores-a-victory-on-illegal-immigration-as-the-rest-of-europe-is-reeling

Italy steps up clampdown on boats rescuing migrants in Mediterranean Sea

August 28, 2024

Giorgia Meloni’s government has impounded a humanitarian rescue ship for the 23rd time, as Italy steps up its clampdown on irregular migration across the Mediterranean.

Just over 39,500 irregular migrants have arrived in Italy by sea this year, compared with 112,500 in the same period last year, and 53,400 in 2022, according to Italy’s interior ministry. “Italy continues to reap the fruits of the work of the Meloni government on the front of the fight against wild clandestine immigration,” Tommaso Foti, head of the Brothers of Italy’s parliamentary delegation, said this month. https://www.ft.com/content/ada8343c-3783-4600-9726-9aba86f3e38a

We are seeing a shift happening in Europe related to migrants and other matters.

However, it will end up being too little too late as far as democracy goes.

Despite elections, the Bible shows that Europe will reorganize and power will be granted to a dictator:

12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. (Revelation 17:12-13, NKJV throughout unless otherwise specified)

These ten kings have no kingdom, but are to attain one. Thus, this is a type of reorganization in verse 12–and basically a type of major or great reset (see also Is a Great Reset Coming?). Since they give their power to the Beast in verse 13, this is a second reorganization–and that Beast will be a dictator. The Beast is the one who was the prince of Daniel 9:26 (see also The ‘Peace Deal’ of Daniel 9:27). He is also the seventh king of Revelation 17:10, and becomes so with the fulfillment of Revelation 17:13. As far as the identity of the sixth king of Revelation 17:10, check out the article: The European Union and the Seven Kings of Revelation 17.

Migrant matters will be a factor in his rise.

He will also be the one who will lead the attack against the USA and its British-descended allies in what could be called WWIII.

The time for that is getting closer.

LATEST NEWS REPORTS

LATEST BIBLE PROPHECY INTERVIEWS

0 notes

umichenginabroad · 10 months ago

Text

Week 8: Perfect Distractions

Hi again! This week, things have been picking up speed as we approach the final countdown until our research papers/posters are due for our symposium in a little over a week. Since I’m sure my underlying stress about that will be thoroughly captured in my next blog post, this one can be reserved for the fun activities that filled this week to help distract us from our actual responsibilities here.

Last Friday was the Germany vs. Spain Euro Cup game which made it a day full of anticipation and excitement… until it became one of crushing sadness for Germans everywhere. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating just a bit, but I’d be lying if I said you couldn’t sense the disappointment in Aachen when Germany lost in overtime in their first elimination round of the Euro Cup. Back home, I’m pretty anti-soccer/football for the theatrical fake injuries and weird penalty rules, but the passion for football culture here is infectious, and with the Euro Cup being located in Germany this year, not watching das Spiel would be like skipping a home game against Michigan State.

The main student street bars filled up a whole hour before the game, so a group of us sadly opted for one a bit further away. After trailing most of the game, Germany scored to tie it up in the last 5 minutes of regulation… only to let up a goal 15 minutes later. It was devastating, truly… or at least until we managed to remind ourselves that we are not, in fact, from Germany, and our soccer team back home wouldn't even stand a chance in a single Euro Cup game anyways… After the game, we stumbled across a heavy metal music festival happening in town and managed to catch the last band's performance. With metal being my favorite music genre, I was pretty psyched… until we realized the last band was pirate-themed and had the mosh pit “rowing” on the ground. No, no, I’m serious.

Proof there was actual rowing

Still though, I love that Aachen has so many of these live music performances throughout the summer. If I could bring anything back from the student culture here in Aachen to Ann Arbor, it would definitely be all the student run, free festivals with live music, drinks, and good vibes.

This past Saturday we visited Bonn, the former capital of West Germany. There, we started with a tour of a historical museum and learned more about Germany's development from the end of WWII to today. I’ll be visiting Berlin two weekends from now (stay tuned for that!) and after our history lesson I’m looking forward to seeing the remains of der Mauer/the Berlin Wall even more.

Part of the Germany Reunification exhibit at Haus der Geschichte in Bonn

After the tour, we split up to explore different things to do around Bonn. I more or less went the ‘Girls Day’ route which started with a delicious bowl of Ramen (oh how I’ve missed it) and a boba run. After that, we visited the Haribo superstore here and stocked up on cheap candy. Since Bonn is the birthplace of Haribo, they had two full floors of every shape, size, color, and flavor of gummy known to man.

Some (of many) Haribo candies + Ramen + and Boba = good day

One impressively cheap manicure and shopping spree later, we headed back to Aachen and relaxed after what was clearly such a taxing day of travel.

Sights from Bonn's Altstadt

On Wednesday, we traveled to a small, picture-perfect town named Monschau located about an hour's bus ride away from Aachen. Some people dream of their ‘white picket fence’, but ever since my first travels to Germany, I’ve dreamt of having one of these adorable timber-framed houses.

The picture-perfect timber-framed houses in Monschau

There's something about how quaint and cozy they look, decorated with their perfect flower baskets and colorful window panes that really makes one start thinking about early retirement and picking up knitting or butter churning. Or, I guess in the case of this town, glass blowing. Throughout Monschau, we found many souvenir shops with beautiful hand-crafted glass wares. We even found a marketplace store called the “Glashuette '' with incredible displays of glass figurines, vases, ornaments, etc. where we spent 5 euros to do our own glass blowing. Though my impeccably blown vase/plant-waterer/misc.-purpose-glass-thing probably won’t be making it back on the flight with me in one piece, it was still a fun, worthwhile experience.

Inside Glashuette: the "outdoor" indoor craft market in Monschau

After our impeccable artisanry we rewarded ourselves with ice cream in the village to perfectly complement the sunny day (Yes, it did randomly start pouring twice and cause us to say goodbye to another fallen umbrella, but still a 10/10 day by Aachen standards.)

Icecreamm <3

We ended our day in Monschau with a small hike around the outskirts of the town where we saw an incredible view of the houses from above.

Incredible views (and goats) at the top of our hike in Monschau

Tomorrow I’ll be traveling back to Dusseldorf for some pop-up fair. Not entirely sure what to expect, but with only two weekends left, I’m hoping to make this a good one! (while also trying fruitlessly to remind myself to study for German and finish my paper, but we’ll see how that part goes…)

Sarah Bargfrede

Computer Science

UROP Program in Aachen

#SarahBargfrede #IPEAachen #UmichEnginAbroad #IPESummer24 #Germany

0 notes

eternal-echoes · 2 years ago

Text

“Throughout history Christianity has played an important role in Germany, since the 4th century within the borders on the Roman Empire and later also through the missionary activities of Irish and Scottish wandering monks in the 6th and 7th centuries.

However, Germany is also still marked by the division of the Church after the Reformation in the 16th century. Its Christian population is approximately half Catholic, half Protestant.

In the 20th century, the country experienced two World Wars Between 1933 and 1945 it was in the grip of the Nazi regime. In 1949 the western part of the country became the democratic Federal Republic of Germany, while its eastern regions became the German Democratic Republic, a Communist regime.

Political upheavals in the East, which culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall, brought about a reunification of the two parts of Germany which formed a democratic state in 1990.

During the 1950s and 60s, a large number of so-called Gastarbeiter (guest workers) from South and South-Eastern Europe came to Germany, many of whom are now third-generation residents.

Besides the Catholic Southern Europeans, many Turkish citizens came to work in Germany who today account for the considerable proportion of Muslim inhabitants in the cities. They were joined by immigrants from Eastern Europe and, more recently, Asia and Africa.

Against this social backdrop, ecumenism, the dialog with other religions and cultures, integration, and efforts to maintain a harmonious social atmosphere are important challenges for the Church in Germany.

While the Constitution and Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany reflect our Christian heritage, we are witnessing a continuing trend towards secularization. Due to its Communist heritage, in the East of Germany the proportion of Christians is less than 20%. The vast majority of Eastern Germans are not baptized and have not heard the message of Christianity.

All the more important, then, is the motto of the XX World Youth Day— “We have come to worship Him” — which, contrary to the signs of the time—the tendency to see man as the absolute—places God in the center and makes Him the goal of all human effort. World Youth Day is a way to bear witness of Jesus Christ, the rock on which young people build their “future and a world of greater justice and solidarity” (Message on the occasion of the XX World Youth Day, no. 5). This is where the challenge comes to bear of the Ecumenical efforts of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians to be witnesses of the Gospel in Germany, a European Union Member State, and send the Christian message out into Europe.”

- Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Cologne for the 20th World Youth Day (August 18-21, 2005)

#Catholic #Christianity #quotes #World Youth Day #Germany

4 notes · View notes

langernameohnebedeutung · 5 years ago

Text

Okay since I remember one of the asks that disappeared, it was about what the situation is like between East Germany and West Germany today and if there are linguistic or cultural differences. (For one, if you’re interested in this, I really recommend the film Goodbye, Lenin, it’s a classic and it’s exactly about this subject and really funny and sad)

As for the linguistic side, because it’s simpler-

There are a lot of regional differences between German to begin with and I think compared to them, the differences between 'East German' German and 'West German' German are rather small. Being West German myself, I have an easier time understanding someone from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Brandenburg or Saxony-Anhalt than I do with someone who has a strong Bavarian, Swabian or Franconian accent, although the former were East German and the former are West German. Also they’re not necessarily more similar because they were one a specific side of the border.

There are some things that vaguely align with either region and were more common on one side - for example there are different ways to same the time, but those also predate the separation and not all 'Wessis' say it this way and all 'Ossis' say it that way.

There are some specific words and abbreviations and idioms that originated in West Germany or in East Germany, but they are mostly rooted in Hochdeutsch (Standard German) so you can conclude their meaning.

For example, in West Germany people called a supermarket a Supermarkt (generally, there are more loanwords from Western languages in 'West German') while East Germans said 'Kaufhalle'. But 'Super' and 'Markt' are both German words and even if you don't know what it means, you can conclude that it's a really great place to run your daily errands. And 'Kauf' and 'Halle' translates to 'buying hall' so you get the same idea.

In regional dialects such as Frisian or Swiss German, this would impossible, because these dialects are much older and very often have words and rules that don't exist in Standard German - not to mention they are pronounced very differently. You couldn’t deconstruct a word like that into Standard German unless they sound similar. Some researchers also said that some words were used differently and that East Germans had a stronger distinction between public and private language and make different jokes - which is pretty much a transition into the other differences. Basically, the actual use of language that came into existence because of the separation was too short-lived and too artificial to truly part of the language. Plus there was never actually an attempt by either side to create a ‘new’ German language.

I actually watched some videos about North Koreans living in South Korea and struggling with the language and I noticed that for one, that Koreans said there was a rather consistent North Korean way of speaking - but while there are certain dialects like Saxonian that are ‘typical’ East German dialects (my parents can tell you if someone comes from East or West Berlin and often which part of either just based on the way they speak), there is not ONE East German dialect. Plus, the duration and intensity of the separation cannot be compared to that of Korea. Many East Germans still listened to West German radio and watched Western television. People could talk on the phone and write letters. And before the ‘death strip’ was finished, people could even talk across the wall. So there was some interaction.

As for other differences -

The obvious ones are the economical differences. West Germany still has a stronger economy than East Germany - a map, as an example (although it’s a bit small I know) - you can easily make out which part used to be GDR and which used to be West Germany.

The result is that many young East Germans, especially young women, move into the West to work, especially from rural regions. There are a lot of towns actually shrinking because they're only populated by old people and those who stay behind and try to make it work. At the same time, a lot of West Germans have started studying in the East because things are cheaper there. Many of them are students - so, again, young people - but they are moving into the cities like Leipzig, Potsdam or Dresden.

I definitely think there is a generational divide in the attitude East Germans and West Germans have for each other. I was born after the reunification and I've always considered all of Germany my home-country and so do pretty much all my peers and everyone up to a certain age. But my mother, for example, was born three years after the wall was first built and her entire youth, she watched it become bigger and higher and stronger - back then, she could barely imagine ever seeing a reunification and living in West Berlin, she experienced East Germany as a hostile country surrounding her and restricting her and being the cause of all the military presence - so she also didn't really see them as the other half to a whole and more of an enemy.

This was one of my favourite caricatures in my history books in school, it’s about the changing attitude East and West had to each other, the text says:

1945: “Brother!” 1955: “My dear cousin!” 1965: “Oh, right - we still have some distant relative living in a foreign country.”

The generation who was actually born pre-separation was born under the NS-regime and for most of them, watching the country as it was fall apart and rebuilding their lives after the war was a formative experience. This generation was all about looking forward, not back (because...looking back was very ugly, too). People who had family in the other half tried to stay in contact, make it work - but people who didn't usually had a more ambiguous relationship to all of this.

After the war, West Germany under Chancellor Adenauer's leadership was at least as eager to build relationships with the West as to reunify. And considering that occupied Germany could do very little to actually solve the whole Cold War problem all by itselves, the focus for the West was really on reconciling with France, forming a stronger European community (what would eventually turn into the European Union), rebuilding the country (Miracle on the Rhine) as well as rebuilding its international reputation. The fight to reconnect with the East (like attempts to form a 'pan'-German Olympics team) was mostly carried by individuals and organisations.

West Germany never considered itself saturated - for example, the reason that our Constitution is not called a Verfassung but a Grundgesetz a 'basic law' is that having a constitution would imply that this is a fully-formed state, when really, it was only expected to exist until the reunification. But de facto, in the 1960s and 1970s, reunification had begun to seem so unlikely that West Germany begun to ‘solidify’. I live near Bonn (the capital of West Germany) and it's interesting that the buildings the government moved into during the 1970 are much more permanent and secure (also partly because of RAF terror attacks).

You also have to keep in mind, even when the wall came down, only very few countries actually supported a reunification - many wanted the two Germanys to continue to exist as separate countries or to find a different solution. People were really worried about German reunification meaning that Germany would suddenly revert back to Nazi-Germany or, less paranoid, that a united Germany would be such an economic super-power that it would dominate the EU (...well) with only France and Britain (...well) being able to opposite it. So being too vocal about reunification for no reason was a delicate diplomatic endeavour in the decades prior to reunification. But long story short, there was always the dream of reuniting and becoming a whole new country together one day.

Which is...kinda the problem today.

Culturally, East Germany had an entirely different attitude towards itself, West Germany, its Allies and the world. It was a lot more militaristic, it was socialist and also had a very different relationship to the legacy of the NS-history and had very different international allies. For example, in SED-lingo, the “Berlin Wall” was called the “Anti-Fascist Protection Wall” (The West being the fascists.) They considered themselves a new country. West Germany considered itself the Nachfolgestaat (successor state) to Nazi Germany with all responsibilities like building a good relationship with Israel etc. while East Germany held up the communist resistance and saw themselves more as the successors of the people who fought against the Nazis. A lot of members of the SED government had actually fled Germany during the NS-regime and gone to Russia and aided the resistance from there.

I already mentioned West Germany's great plans about reuniting and becoming a whole new country together. But when the wall fell, that never happened. West Germany absorbed East Germany and moved on with no new constitution or actual negotiation. Compared to West Germany, East Germany didn't have a strong economy and it was socialist, which means that the companies were owned by the state. A state that had ceased to exist, basically. So West Germany decided on a plan to bring East Germany up to (capitalist) standard. Chancellor Kohl promised that he would turn it into 'Blühende Landschaften', 'thriving lands' (which is something West Germans often mockingly say when they're angry about something happening in East Germany, so you do the maths).

Problem with all of this was that this meant basically re-modelling the entire economy. A lot of people lost their jobs, the weaker East German currency was replaced with the West German currency and Western companies moved into East Germany.

There is this old joke about reunification: East Germany: "West Germany, West Germany, you broke your promises." West Germany: "Don't worry about it, I'll buy you a new one."

Basically, through the Solidaritätszuschlag a lot of money was invested into the East - something that to this day, many people in the West resent, especially people who come from poorer regions themselves and accuse East Germans of mismanaging money or say that cities like Leipzig or Dresden were built up to be representative for the success of the reunification while certain regions in the West like the Ruhr-region are suffering at least as much as rural regions in East Germany. These groups demand that the Solidaritätszuschlag isn’t just invested into the East but all regions that have a poor infrastructure or similar problems.

You have to understand what a big deal reunification was when it happened. To this day, it is considered the 'only peaceful revolution on German soil' and East Germans take great pride in beating that regime while West Germans consider it the fulfillment to all diplomatic ambitions the country had since it was formed. And obviously, families were reunited after decades, people could move freely - you have to keep in mind, travel was extremely restricted and now everyone could go wherever they pleased. It was the biggest, best and happiest moment in living history. And then it took a giant nose-dive in the 90s and the stereotypes of the 'whining East German' and the 'arrogant West German' were born.

For example, the poverty caused a rise in right-wing radicalism in East Germany. The country was very isolated and suddenly a lot of families lost their income and people started blaming it on immigrants. West Germans, in response, decided East Germans are all Nazis and racists and are ruining our elections.

These days, parties like the right-wing AfD are actually trying to use the 'Western is the default' culture of Germany to appeal to East Germans and presenting themselves as the only ones who will represent East Germany. That's why they're rather successful in East Germany - they actually address East Germans as a group while the other parties look out for their supporters in specific regions in the West. At the same time, many East Germans who aren't racist, aren't Nazis and aren't voting the AfD or NPD accuse West Germans (rightfully imo) of blaming all problems there are with racism in the country on the East to avoid addressing their own issues.

East German: “As if there was no racism in the West.” West German: “There is...but it’s only latent.”

I think it’s important to understand that there are cultural differences and they can’t be broken down into: “East Germany has more Nazis”. And there are different experiences people made on either side.

For example, in 2009, during her election campaign, Angela Merkel had an interview and spoke about how she preferred buying her own groceries. (Yeah, German elections are full of riveting revelations about exciting stuff. Nothing compared to her compaign where she revealed her recipe for potato soup). She said: "I go to the supermarket - or, as we used to say, Kaufhalle."

The German version of the Daily Show takes this clip and shows it and makes a whole joke about it with the host commenting rather drily: "No, she got something wrong here - we never said Kaufhalle in the Federal Republic of Germany". Obviously, Merkel never said that anyone said that in West Germany. She was speaking of her personal experience - and she's East German. But I find it very telling that a national tv program actually branded this as a 'mistake' on her part, because the way she talked about her experiences wasn’t altered for West Germans to identify with them. At the same time, if you watch tv shows that are in a generic German setting - for example the tv-show Dark - you will notice that they’re never in East Germany. They’re almost always in a generic West German place - because that is not considered a statement.

As for other cultural differences, East Germany became very un-religious while West Germany had many CDU (Christian Democratic Union) governments. The result today is that West Germans are more likely to be (at least on the paper) either Protestant or Catholic while (I think) 3 out of 4 East Germans are neither. There are different attitudes towards family, equality, community, ---- nudity, entertainment, food, cooking. how much ice-cream should cost and so on.

So this also means there are...differences regarding the way people think about the past. West Germans tend to think of their living memory as universal, while Ostalgie (East-algia) is something peculiar to the East - because West Germans (with the exception maybe of West Berliners) didn’t experience comparable changes. But East Germans remembering their old cars and old food and stuff is something that many West Germans are suspicious of, because for West Germans, their last experience with a dictatorship was the NS-regime, so there is a much smaller acceptance of the West of separating the lived every-day culture under an authoritarian regime than in the East, where entire generations grew up in this system and built a private life for themselves outside the political aspects of that society.

This also leads to the bigger conversation about the GDR as an ‘Unrechtsstaat’ (Rechtsstaat: A country where everyone is equally protected by the law, Unrecht: Injustice). Basically, when East Germans say “Not everything was bad”, they are usually speaking about the community, helping each other and specific traditions, child care, things being more affordable. When West Germans hear them say ‘not everything was bad’ they think about that one uncle who might or might not have been in the SS and alarm bells begin to ring. I think this conversation is full of misunderstandings on either side. Because the East Germans actually suffered a cultural shock in the 90s when basically their entire culture changed and many people lost their jobs and their entire social environment begun to crack - while West Germans grew up watching military parades and giant socialist celebrations being held on tv for years in their neighbouring country and feared that they would be the first to die if a nuclear war broke out and now they see people celebrate that time.

That said, I think the tone of these disagreements has changed somewhat and statistics show that people are becoming increasingly more ‘German’ and less ‘East’ or ‘West’ German.. As I said, there is a strong generational divide, imo. No one in my generation or ...below 35 would ever seriously argue that 'East' and 'West' don't belong together, while I know some people in their 40s and 50s who sometimes say it was a mistake. These days, in my opinion, its less a sentiment of 'this is a different country and we have to live with them' (another joke: What's the difference between Russians and West Germans? - we got rid of the Russians) and more an internal disagreement that has some very serious aspects and some less serious aspects.

There is this (unofficial, whimsical) thing that journalists do every year when we (officially) celebrate (by doing literally nothing and sitting at home) reunification and they go around asking random people if the 'wall in our heads' still exists and I don't think it's really a wall that exists - it's not about the wall, anymore, or the Cold War or propaganda or anything, it's about the differences that exist today.

And in your original ask you wanted to know if there are still ramifications and there definitely are - the economical ones and the cultural ones. But I think when it comes to the cultural ones, I think part of the problem is the West German expectation that in order to truly tear down the 'wall in our heads', East Germans have to become and act and think exactly like West Germans - but I don't think that should be the goal and I think that the actual tensions between East and West are becoming smaller rather than bigger. I mean, I really focused on the negative in this answer, but I think most people today, especially the young generation, considers themselves German first and Ossi or Wessi second (or fourth or fifth) and the economical situation in the East has improved tremendously since the 1990s and I think that also helps easing things.

I also dug up some numbers of varying usefulness for you:

43% of East Germans say they eat meat and sausage every day, only 24% of West Germans do

The Gender Pay Gap is 7% in East Germany and 22% in West Germany

Of the 201 most successful CEOs in Germany, only 2% are East German

27% of East Germans say they trust the media, 43% of West Germans do

The 20 biggest German newspaper are all from former West Germany

2017 about 38% of East Germany were open to trying chocolate pizza, 43% of West Germans were

#nonfandom #I hope this answers some questions

433 notes · View notes

timely-inneficient · 3 years ago

Text

Today my day reached peak shittiness, so here's some german bros feeling even shittier...

If Prussia actually had to dissapear after his disolution but the just forced himself to not get "reincorporated" to Germany's main body... this happens. More after the cut.

It had not been instantaneous. After the reunification, his brother had vanished. He had not gone down gentle into that goodnight. Ludwig had spent that night awake, heard echoing steps grow increasingly agitated, heard howls of agony and the crashing sounds of broken plates against the walls of the house. By first light, the animalistic sounds had given into sobs that wracked his brother's breaths into coughs. "I WILL NOT DIE!!!!" He had clung to Germany's shoulders, nails pressing too hard into his shirt. "I WON´T!" He snarled, teeth bared. "I.... won't." His bloodshot eyes stared at Germany's own blue pair. It had taken 36 hours until the end. Ludwig sometimes thinks he can feel his brother near. But he misses him, and he is grieving. It's not so weird to think his brother's memory might be clinging to his mind. Still, it's unsettling how clearly he can hear his voice in his head.

"....I.... won´t...." If only his last moments hadn't been so harsh. It had taken them both by surprise. They had still been riding the high of the reunion when the pain had started. Germany was able to feel it, in a way. Like a tension all over his body. But the agony had been reserved for Gilbert alone. ".... not..... die..." Ludwig took his head into his hands. It had been two weeks since reunification. A pulsing headache had been steadily growing since then. His skull felt like it was going to break in half. He splashed some water into his face. Was his left eye... redder? He pulled back his eyelid and peered closer in the mirror. A red dot was starting to grow in the white of his eyes. He felt dizzy. He let his eyelid drop. What is going on? His legs were shaking. He went to bed. The next morning, the dot had not disappeared. It had actually grown bigger, more defined. His face was red and itchy. But the horror didn't really sink until he saw his reflection in the bathroom mirror once again. The side of his hair was turning platinum white. The left side. "Am I going crazy" he blurted. "....no" "This cannot be happening" "..I will not die..."

#hws germany #hws prussia #tw body horror #hetalia #idk how formatting works #this is the first piece of writting I do for any fandom

6 notes · View notes

camillasgirl · 4 years ago

Text

A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales at the Central Remembrance Ceremony in Berlin, 15.11.2020

Mr. President,

President of the Bundestag,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a particular honour to have been invited to speak here today, on this solemn and special occasion, and to join you in eternal remembrance of all victims of war and tyranny. In this memorable year, marking seventy-five years of peace and friendship between us, it gives my wife and myself such great pride to return to Germany, and to renew those enduring bonds between our two countries.

I have been coming to Germany since I was just thirteen years old, and first visited Berlin nearly fifty years ago. Over the decades, I have been struck by the ways in which this remarkable city embodies so much of the history of our continent, and all that we have been through. After the devastation of conflict, and the tragedy of division, it has not only endured but triumphed, liberated from flawed and distorted ideologies so that hope and the human spirit could prevail.

Berlin reminds us that the fortunes of all Europeans have been dependent on one another for centuries. The relationships we enjoy today are built on foundations dug deep in the bedrock of our common experience, anchored by bonds running North and South, East and West, through our diverse communities and across our borders.

The connections between the British and German people go back at least as far as the Roman Empire, evolving within a shared civilisation, and woven with threads drawn back and forth through the years. For many of us, those ties are personal, with family connections and associations which remain greatly treasured to this day.

Our people have prospered from one another through commerce, since the Hanseatic League established a trading relationship which continues to drive our shared prosperity. However, the relationship between us has always been so much more than a transactional one. We have long viewed each other with fascination - admiring of each other’s culture and inspired by each other’s ideas, we have influenced and borrowed from one another in a virtuous circle of reinforcing connections that have strengthened and enriched us both.

The examples are myriad. It was a German, Hans Holbein the Younger, who became the first celebrated artist in England. Half a century later, German was the first language into which Shakespeare was translated. The English landscape garden was brought to Germany by Prince Leopold III of Anhalt-Dessau who, inspired by the models of Stourhead and Stowe, laid out the magnificent gardens at Wörlitz of which I am proud to be Patron. Onecan scarcely imagine where the British musical tradition would be without the influence of Bach, Beethoven or Brahms; and the music of Georg Friedrich Handel, who was born a German but died British, has been played at the Coronation of every British Sovereign since that of my seven times great grandfather, King George II.

Throughout the nineteenth century, German scientific and artistic thought shaped British life, encouraged, in part, by the leadership of my great, great, great, grandfather, Prince Albert, The Prince Consort. German was a vitally important language for British academics to acquire, at a time when German immigration to Britain grew significantly and Schroders Bank and Reuters News Agency helped shape London’s global role. It was not as remarkable as it perhaps now seems, that at the outbreak of the First World War four members of the British cabinet had studied at German Universities. It is similarly striking, that in the years after that conflict, British students flocked back to Germany for the exposure to German culture that they, and their parents, considered to be so essential to their education.

Looking back through the prism of two world wars, with all the cruel distortions rendered by conflict and loss, so many of those close connections between Britain and Germany became obscured. And yet, as our countries, and our people, set to the difficult task of rebuilding this continent – and our trust in one another – the deep and historic well of shared experience from which we drew, enabled the seeds of reconciliation to take root and flourish.

And so, over these past seventy-five years, our two countries have been restored to our natural position of allies and friends. Britain was by Germany’s side through those extraordinary years of post-war reconstruction. We have watched, with profound admiration, the remarkable success of Germany’s peaceful reunification over the past thirty years, and with deep respect for the example that she has offered the world.

Today our countries stand together as indispensable partners in almost every field of endeavour imaginable, conscious of our past but confident about our future. As the message read on the wreath that you, Mr. President, laid at the Cenotaph in London two years ago this week, let us “remember side by side, grateful for reconciliation, hopeful for a future in peace and friendship.”

Reconciliation is a difficult but essential process, as I have seen in almost every corner of the globe, as well as on the islands of my own country. That we have healed so much division on our continent is cause for sustained gratitude and the utmost pride. However, as thankful as we should be for how far we have come, I know that many of you share my view that we must take nothing for granted.

We can never reconcile ourselves to the horrors of the past as simply the events of another age – distant, time bound, disconnected from our present lives. Nor can any of us assume that they are someone else’s burden to bear. Instead, the searing relevance of the past to the present day, and to our future, makes it our solemn and shared responsibility to ensure that heartbreaking lessons are learned and heeded by each successive generation.

The former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Rabbi Lord Sacks, who so tragically died earlier this month, wrote that “a future of reconciliation can, in some measure at least, retrospectively redeem the past.” He was quite right, of course. Otherwise not only do we compound past wrongs and amplify their effect, but we fail all those who struggled and died for a better tomorrow.

In this, we must work together. We must remain vigilant against threats to our values and our freedoms; and never rest in seeking to create mutual understanding and respect. We must be resolute in addressing acts of unspeakable cruelty against people for reasons of their religion, their race or their beliefs, wherever they occur in the world. We must stand alongside each other in determined defence of the future we owe our children and our grandchildren.

The challenges to that future are manifest – whether from this dreadful pandemic which threatens not just our public health but our prosperity and security; or from the existential threat to our planet, and our way of life, from climate change and catastrophic biodiversity loss.

These crises demand that we act together, and the partnership between the United Kingdom and Germany offers such a vital opportunity in this regard. We are heavily invested in each other’s futures, such that our national interests, whilst distinct, will always be entwined.

Our countries are instinctive problem-solvers, working together to find innovative and practical solutions to the challenges we see in the world around us – on global health and vaccine development; clean growth and renewable energy; forest protection and biodiversity; and climate action in developing countries. Together, we stand resolutely in defence of our shared values, as champions of human rights and the Rules Based International System. Together, we are an indispensable force for good in our world.

The English poet, John Donne, famously wrote that “no man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” One might equally submit that no country is really an island either, other than in the wholly literal sense. Our histories bind us tightly together and our destinies, although each our own to forge, are interdependent to a considerable degree.

Mr. President, President of the Bundestag, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The United Kingdom has chosen a future outside the European Union, and the relationship between our countries is evolving once again. Its shape is a matter negotiated between our governments and its essence is defined by the enduring connections between our people. It is, therefore, my heartfelt belief that the fundamental bond between us will remain strong: we will always be friends, partners and allies.

As our countries begin this new chapter in our long history, let us reaffirm our bond for the years ahead. Let us reflect on all that we have been through together, and all that we have learned. Let us remember all victims of war, tyranny and persecution; those who laid down their lives for the freedoms we cherish, and those who struggle for these freedoms to this day. They inspire us to strive for a better tomorrow – let us make this our common cause.

#Prince Charles #brexit #speech #this speech was/ is amazing #loved it

29 notes · View notes

semiotextiana · 5 years ago

Text

I like forgot that political parties existed but wow. the german social democratic party really is fucking dead and keeps burying itself. We live in weird times. Up until a decade ago there was basically a two party system of christian democrats and social democrats but the social democrats swearing off marxism after 1990 and the german reunification really paved the way for germanys merge into full on neoliberalism with the workplace reforms in the early 2000s under social democratic + green party rule lmfao(!). Merkel party then harvested the fruits of the “economic growth” from those reforms and has been in power since, and solidified it with the “handling” of the financial crisis in 2009. Merkel has also continuously shifted the optics of her christian democratic party to the left, literally subsuming and yeeting the social democratic party entirely, drawing a large amount of voters. The social democrats really killed themselves by swearing off socialism, submitting to parliamentary politics. like they literally deleted the position they stood for and with it the space for them in party politics. thats what you get. And at the peak of merkel rule it all started to crumble with the onset of peoples disillusionment under neoliberal capitalism after a time of living in what was sold to the people as economic paradise. similar to the US disillusionment under obama rule from 2012 onwards kind of. And then the last standing of the two popular parties also shrunk away when people channeled their disillusionment by rejecting the establishment. There was no social alternative to the “establishment” though because the social democrats are just Merkel party lite version and the left party has a shady reputation because of their East german “communist” past. And the extreme right wing fucking owned their momentum in that time... instrumentalizing people’s existential fears and feelings of abandonment under neoliberal capitalism to draw them towards racist rhetoric in the wake of the “refugee crisis” of 2015. And then here we are today post refugee crisis post greta in total apathy and covid phenomenon induced psychosis with a random decade long ongoing rule of the two unpopular popular parties that have been on decline for a decade as well. and a fluctuating rise in votes for the extreme right wing (AfD) and the green party.... and elections next year. No cute look for party politics these days. Whatever. what the fuck is going awn

16 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 2 years ago

Text

Germany's parliament on Friday commemorated the 70th anniversary of a popular uprising in the Communist east that was brutally crushed by its Soviet-backed dictatorship.

Worsening economic conditions and political repression in East Germany had prompted months of protests, starting in rural areas, that culminated in a call on June 16, 1953, for a general strike.

The following day more than half a million people took to the streets across East Germany, including the capital, Berlin. About 50 people were killed and thousands were arrested by Communist secret police with the help of Soviet troops. Dozens of Soviet soldiers who refused to shoot protesters were executed.

The East German regime branded the uprising a “fascist putsch” instigated by the West, a claim for which there was no evidence.

It was the first revolt against Soviet rule in eastern Europe. Others would follow in Hungary and what was then Czechoslovakia.

“The uprising of June 17 was not only directed against the increasing demand on workers, against low wages, high prices, empty shelves," German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in a speech to lawmakers. “It was directed against the standardization of an entire society, against planned rule and forced collectivization, against state surveillance, propaganda and censorship, against the suppression of Christians, opposition members and non-conformists, against the dictatorship of a single party, which claimed that it was always right.”

Following the crackdown, hundreds of thousands of people fled to West Germany until the so-called Iron Curtain was cemented by the Communist regime with a vast border fence and the Berlin Wall.

Steinmeier noted that the striving for freedom eventually prevailed, when protesters took to the streets again in 1989, eventually toppling the dictatorship and leading to German reunification a year later.

He also drew a parallel to the situation in Ukraine, saying the country was defending itself against a Russian attack driven by Moscow's efforts to restore former imperial glory.

“(Ukrainians) are also defending what brave people in Europe have stood up for time and again since 1953, achieved in 1989 and never want to lose again,” Steinmeier said.

“On this anniversary of June 17 we're also thinking of the Ukrainian men and women who are fighting against unfreedom and repression today,” he said.

#nunyas news #and now 70 years later you have people #trying to make it come back #because they're idiots

9 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 5 years ago

Text

Austria-Hungary and the European War - A Hearts of Iron IV AAR

Austria-Hungary today is one of the principal powers of Europe, a highly-industrialized, prosperous and modern country. The krone is considered a major reserve currency, the University of Vienna is held in similar esteem to Cambridge or Harvard, and the Two Crowns are as recognizable as the Union Jack or the 51-starred American flag. Tourists regularly flock to Venice, political summits are regularly held at Budapest, and Austro-Hungarian goods are sold across the world. Yet the meteoric rise of Austria-Hungary was mired in controversy particularly for its role in the Balkan Crisis and the short-lived Hungarian-Yugoslavian war of aggression, and it was only the struggle against the Axis powers that united the western and eastern halves of Europe into a single whole.

Refoundation

The Kingdom of Hungary was in a precarious position in 1936. Dismembered by the Treaty of Trianon after the Great War, Hungary had seen a succession of ministers promising to restore the prestige of the diminished state from the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic to the ardently pro-Nazi Gyula Gömbös. With the failures of both the fascist and communist movements on full display, the Regent Admiral Miklos Horthy elected to work with the monarchist parties, approving their motion for stricter budgetary controls and supporting their call for a restoration of the Hungarian monarchy, giving a famous speech on 8 October 1936 that “a regent is a steward, not a king.” The debate raged as to who would be invited to wear the crown of Saint Stephen, with Frederich Franz of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Carl Wilhelm of Sondermanland both suggested as candidates. The former with the nationalist Unity Party and encouraged by pro-German elements along with Adolf Hitler, the latter was championed by the liberal parties in the hopes that he would introduce a monarchy modeled upon the Swedish constitutional system. However, the monarchist voices were the most powerful, and they selected as their candidate Otto von Habsburg, to restore the previous prestige that the country enjoyed under Habsburg leadership. At his coronation ceremony on 16 December, 1936, Otto von Habsburg swore to restore the kingdom to prominence, and return the provinces lost in the war. This caused an uproar within the European diplomatic community, with President Edvard Benes of Czechoslovakia and Prime Minister Leon Blum of France providing the strongest voice against the move. When pressed to reaffirm France’s eastern commitments established in the wake of the Great War, Blum was noncommittal, domestic commitments and the weakness of his Popular Front government in the wake of rising violence between the French Communist Party and the nationalist Leagues.

Yet despite the rhetoric, King Otto I took an unexpected policy direction. His first cabinet was dominated by industrial policy, looking to revitalize a decaying industrial structure by importing ideas from the more industrialized nations, particularly the United States, who benefitted from a large trade deal for U.S. Steel. Keenly aware of the limited natural resources, King Otto commissioned an institute to innovate synthetic materials, primarily Buna rubber and oil from coal liquefaction plants, bringing in ideas developed in Germany and the United Kingdom. Even more surprising, Otto convened the Danubian Railroad Summit, inviting Austria and Czechoslovakia to unite their railroad networks, which had suffered since the break-up of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. This move particularly impressed the Austrian people, which sparked pro-Hungarian demonstrations which sometimes descended into violence with pro-German groups who wanted to unite Austria with Germany into one Germanic nation. The pro-Hungarian movement owed much of its support to Otto von Habsburg himself, who had spent much of his time in exile writing on Austrian affairs and made a name for himself as a fierce critic of nationalist policies. While monarchist and Catholic voices were among the most loyal of his supporters, he also enjoyed the support of Austria’s Jewish population, largely concentrated within Vienna, as they had hoped that a government led by Otto could stand up to the Third Reich and a large majority of the middle classes who wanted similar industrial policies to help revitalize Austria’s economy. Even stranger, his fierce opposition to Nazi Germany earned him the support of anti-monarchist groups, most notable among them being the social democrats.

Upon learning of the pro-Hungarian demonstrations, Otto suggested to Kurt Schuschnigg to hold a referendum on reunification with Hungary and the restoration of the Dual Monarchy. With the threat of forcible German annexation on the horizon, Austria agreed to hold the referendum provided that Austria would be seen as an equal, and not merely a junior partner. The date of the vote was scheduled for 15 July 1937, a hot summer day. The referendum was fiercely protested by local communist groups, who boycotted the election and accused the Austrian government of manipulation by foreign powers. Otto encouraged participation by funding street parties for pro-Hungarian political groups, and the results were even better than Otto could have predicted: a landslide victory for unification. The Austrian government announced the results on 16 July, and formed itself into a provincial government under the overlordship of the Hungarian monarchy. Otto assumed the title of Emperor of Austria on 22 September, and proclaimed that the Austria-Hungary of old was reborn, and that he would not rest until all of the former Habsburg territories were brought under one banner.

The Balkans Aflame

Almost immediately, this brought a crisis to the Balkan region, with both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia expressing concern about Austro-Hungarian ambitions in Eastern Europe, as both provinces were formed in the collapse of the previous Empire and King Otto’s rhetoric on reclaiming lost territory meant he might be thinking of annexing their territories. Indeed, King Otto embarked on lengthy negotiations with Edvard Benes, discussing the return of Czechoslovakia into the Austria-Hungary as the province of Bohemia. The young democracy had a long struggle with balancing the monarchist and republican voices within the country and the fear of Germany demanding the Sudetenland in its goal to establish a pan-German state. Surprisingly, Otto von Habsburg offered a surprising amount of compromise, promising to respect the Czech parliament as well as the language privileges enjoyed by the region during the time of the previous Austro-Hungarian Empire. Noting the political tension between Czechs and Slovaks, Otto offered to continue Benes’s plan of shared industrial growth in order to relax ethnic tensions, a prime example of Otto’s vision of an Austria-Hungary that was a cosmopolitan, poly-ethnic nation. On 1 December 1937, Benes accepted the offered terms of Austro-Hungarian overlordship, and Otto was acclaimed as King of Bohemia. His speech following his accession was careful, stating his respect for “the young parliament and its enthusaiastic supporters,” as an olive branch to the liberal, anti-monarchist factions who opposed the move. Yugoslavia lodged diplomatic protests, stating that the control of the Czechoslovakian army violated the 35,000 man limit on the Hungarian army as stipulated in the Treaty of Trianon. Otto disagreed, noting that the army was trained in Czechoslovakia before its annexation into Austria-Hungary. Benito Mussolini agreed with Hungary’s claims, and French and British did not comment directly, stating that their primary goal has always been the preservation of peace in the region.

With Bohemia within its borders, Austria-Hungary set its sights on the territories awarded to Romania in the aftermath of the Great War. Transylvania, or Siebenbürgen as the Hungarians named it had a large segment of ethnic Hungarians. Romania, ruled by King Carol II under royal dictatorship, refused the gesture out of hand; Hungarian aggression had caused the Great War and the territory was lawfully transferred to Romania as part of war reparations. Upon hearing his refusal, King Otto retaliated by stating that the treaty went against its stated objective of national self-determination and that the Romanians had violated the treaty due to its land confiscation and anti-Semitic policies. Both Otto and Carol moved their armies to the border, neither wishing to back down in a crisis. The news media of the day was alight with articles fearing another Great War that could start at any time, the Balkans lit aflame yet again.

Wishing to avoid a war, Otto suggested impartial mediation through diplomatic back-channels. With Germany hostile, and France already invested in the conflict with its post-war foreign policy guarantees but unwilling to enforce them, the United Kingdom and Italy were named as possible mediators. This move has been considered a foreign policy masterstroke by Austria-Hungary. By being the one to suggest mediation, it engendered goodwill toward France, Italy, and Great Britain. Neville Chamberlain, the United Kingdom Prime Minister, debated a compromise by returning North Transylvania to Hungary within his own Tory cabinet. Italy however, preferred a strong Hungary ever since coming to diplomatic blows with Germany regarding Austria, and recommended that the territory be ceded to Austria-Hungary. The Italian offer reached the Romanian government first, and believing that they would be facing the Italian and Austro-Hungarian armies combined, ceded the territories without a fight. Chamberlain, upon learning of the compromise, believed it to be a Romanian capitulation, and never sent his proposal.

Otto turned his attention to Yugoslavia, which had been struggling with rising separatist movements among the Croats, Macedonians, and Slovenes. Yugoslavia had vociferously protested Austro-Hungarian actions in the region, but found limited support from France and Britain, particularly after Yugoslavia announced claims on Bulgarian lands in the interests of establishing a “South Slav Union” and started quietly sacking officers who opposed German interest in the Balkans. Having already been disillusioned by the failure of the British and French to prevent the re-militarization of the Rhineland, Prince Paul believed that only alignment with Germany would save Yugoslavia from being annexed by Austria-Hungary. The Jewish populations in Macedonia, Thrace, and Dobrudja were particularly anxious about the direction that Yugoslavia was taking. Citing the need to protect Bulgarian lands from Yugoslavian aggression and the need to return the favor for their assistance in the Great War, Otto declared war on Yugoslavia. Thanks in large part to the highly modernized forces produced by the Czechs and the Skoda Works, the Austro-Hungarians were quickly able to penetrate the Yugoslavian defensive perimeter on their shared border. Austrian forces swept into Slovenia, encircling and destroying isolated units. Belgrade fell in less than thirty days, and the Yugoslavian government was forced to evacuate to Skopje. Even a last minute, desperate defense in the southern theater did little to stop the advancing Austro-Hungarian troops. In less than four months, the Yugoslavian government capitulated completely.

While there were several high-profile diplomatic protests from the League of Nations, most media at the time reported great relief that the conflict was a small, contained struggle that did not erupt into a global war. Sanctions were imposed on Austria-Hungary, but these were of limited effect, as the war had ended before major actions could be agreed upon. The United States, citing the Neutrality Act, traded with neither Austria-Hungary nor Yugoslavia, France had withdrawn its guarantee of independence, and Germany declined to help Yugoslavia, unwilling to help a Slavic power. On 24 February, 1939, King Otto, having secured the territory he had lost, proclaimed the restoration and reintegration of the Dual Monarchy, and the rebirth of Austria-Hungary.

The Sudeten Crisis

Elsewhere in Europe, the great powers were slowly aligning against one another. In 1936, an attempted coup by the Spanish Army had failed and had erupted into a massive civil war. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler quickly sent support to the armies of Nationalist Spain, providing weapons, fuel, and volunteers to assist. Republican Spain had a much harder time finding international support, with only the Soviet Union sending material shipments, while French Prime Minister Leon Blum chaired a Non-Intervention Committee with the United Kingdom, the formation of which led to renewing the Great War-era alliance between the two countries. King Otto joined the Non-Intervention Committee, considering the Spanish Civil War to be a domestic Spanish matter and that the Habsburgs had not been in Spain for over two centuries. During the Civil War, an anarchist rift formed in the Republican faction, with the Regional Defense Council of Aragon refusing to obey Manuel Azaña and starting their own rebellion. The Nationalists, however, were unable to take advantage of this, as they suffered their own coalition fracture between Emilio Mola of the Spanish Directory and Manuel Fel Conde of the Carlist faction. The two factions were driven by irreconcilable divisions over the direction of post-war Spain. In desperation as 1938 began, Azaña accepted Stalin’s offer of expanded Soviet aid. Otto’s refusal to intervene caused a diplomatic rift between Austria-Hungary and Italy, who had expected support in exchange for mediating the Transylvania conflict in Otto’s favor. The Republicans eventually won the civil war on 12 November 1938, and Stalin installed Gabriel Acuna, a retired military officer and ardent Stalinist, as President of Spain, who immediately suspended elections and fired all non-Communist ministers, and instituted emergency laws to allow him to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies in favor of regional Soviets and establish a one-party state. Manuel Azaña, despondent over the death of Spanish democracy, never recovered, and died of illness shortly after the war’s conclusion in exile in France.

The loss of such a state to communism caused Germany and Italy to mend their diplomatic fences. In a famous speech, Mussolini declared: “France, Britain, and Austria-Hungary are unwilling to face the Bolshevik menace.” and signed the Pact of Steel, a treaty of cooperation with the German Reich. Shortly thereafter, the two announced a military alliance. Italy began to court Bulgaria as another possible member of this “Berlin-Rome axis,” Afterward, Italy demanded that Albania’s King Zog cede the country to be ruled in a personal union under Victor Emmanuel III, and Greece received a similar demand from Hitler in June 1939. King Zog of Albania submitted to Italian demands, stating that Albania did not have the manpower to resist Italian invasion and that he would not murder his citizens for pride. Greek Prime Minister Ioannis Metaxas defied the demands, and Germany declared war on 15 June 1939. The invasion of Greece was quickly condemned by United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who issued an ultimatum: leave Greece immediately or face war. When Hitler refused, the United Kingdom declared war, joined by France and the various Dominions. This was too late for Greece, which could not receive reinforcements and was forced to capitulate. The failure of the Allies to protect Greece led to a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, who was replaced by his deputy, Winston Churchill. At Stuttgart, Hitler made a grand show of turning over control of Greece to his alliance partner Mussolini. Diplomatic historians have theorized that this overture was directed at governments which were not part of the Allies, in the hopes of causing them to join the Axis powers and becoming a part of the new European order to receive similar boons of territory.

This development caused a crisis within the Austro-Hungarian cabinet. With Greece and Albania administered through Italian puppet governments, the south flank of the nation was exposed, and if Bulgaria joined the Axis powers, they would be almost completely surrounded. Austria-Hungary’s relationship with the United Kingdom had been frosty ever since the war in Yugoslavia. Several councilors suggested rapprochement with the Axis powers, or attempting to split Mussolini and Hitler to break up the Axis and align with Italy against Germany. The left suggested approaching Stalin for a defensive pact. In a defiant response to the Greek and Albanian submission, Austria-Hungary declared that the countries of eastern Europe were free and independent powers, offering independence guarantees to Romania and Poland to protect them from Axis expansionism, much to the surprise of King Carol II. Hitler began to fund pro-fascist political groups and parties within Austria-Hungary, using nationalist sentiment against the poly-ethnic nation and promoting rhetoric that Otto’s policies were causing ruination of the region, that he must be deposed and Admiral Horthy must be returned to shepherd the government, in the hopes that the 1940 elections would cause domestic unrest and Austro-Hungary distracted by concerns at home. Wehrmacht officers suggested that Hitler thought little of the Austro-Hungarian military, confident that it was full of “weak and backwards races that would crumble against German armor,” and that he wanted to maintain focus on his war with France and the United Kingdom. German groups in Austria were their prime target, but Hitler also targeted Slovaks in eastern Bohemia in an attempt to stir up the divisions that had been present in Czechoslovakia. This effort caused a rise in nativist parties in the north and south of Austria-Hungary. King Otto retaliated with a large-scale crackdown on fascist groups, typically under a flimsy excuse of violating public safety laws, but fascist sentiment grew.

Almost a year after the February Proclamation, Germany, citing the principle of ethnic self-determination and a German state for the German people, demanded that the Sudetenland be ceded to Germany. Konrad Heinlein, leader of the Sudeten German Party and a Great War combat veteran, campaigned publicly for the cession of the territory. King Otto proclaimed Konrad a traitor to the Empire, to which Heinlein responded “You lived in comfort for your nation, I lived in a prison. Which of us has given more?” Street violence followed between the Legitimist monarchist party and the Sudeten German Party, and the First Royal Army Group was positioned along the border from Tyrol to the eastern Sudeten, the Second on the border near South Tyrol, and the Third sent to Macedonia on the border with the Albania and Greece. As the deadline for the German ultimatum drew near, King Otto remained defiant, proclaiming to the emergency session of the joint National Assembly “The Germans may have their war if they dare..The Czech people gave me their trust, and I give it to every man on the border down to the lowliest private. I nor any of the citizens of this reborn nation shall sacrifice this great enterprise.” When the deadline expired, Germany issued a formal declaration of war with Italy following less than four hours later. Austria-Hungary was now at war.

Opening Gambit - The Invasion at Zara, The Greek Campaign, and a War on Two Fronts

While the Wehrmacht had hoped to push into Austria-Hungary from the north, early attempts were repulsed by the extensive fortification network in the Sudetenland and the Austrian mountains. The heavy fortifications and powerful Austro-Hungarian artillery left the theater in a precarious stalemate, neither side able to break through enemy fixed positions. The initial moves from Austria-Hungary had better luck, with the Austro-Hungarian Fifth Army pushing south, deep into enemy territory in Italian-occupied Greece. Initial records from the battle had cited the brilliance of the commander, General Lajos Verees, but later analysis of the war had shown a lack of coordination between Hitler and Mussolini on the war plans for Austria-Hungary. Mussolini’s army had been organizing the annexation and administration of the new Greek holdings, the sudden increase in territory had forced Mussolini to assign many of his forces in that region to garrisons and coordination with the new puppet government while the majority of his trained forces were stationed on the French-Italian border. Several divisions had not even shown up, delayed in transit as Mussolini had to organize an Albanian and Greek regional government. The Italians that had been mobilized had made a valiant showing, but ultimately were forced to cede territory as garrison forces were scrambled at fallback positions and artillery was airlifted to provide firepower for the reeling army.

Hitler had originally intended to reinforce Italian holdings in Greece, but Admiral Karl Donitz suggested a bolder push, to reinforce Italian holdings at Zara and push into Austro-Hungarian territory, hoping to spark a panic. The Austro-Hungarian navy was barely functional, as the shipyards on the Dalmatian coast had only recently been acquired, and intelligence suggested that the Austro-Hungarian only had a few destroyers and submarines staffed with barely trained naval forces. Hitler gave his approval, and the Kriegsmarine launched Operation Blue Serpent. The results were astounding, the combined Italian and German naval force was able to overwhelm the patchwork Austro-Hungarian Navy and force a landing at Zara. From there, Axis forces overran Split and Rijeka in Dalmatia before a relief force under Austro-Hungarian general Fritz Lipfert was able to form a battle line in Bosnia. The loss of vital industrial facilities severely hampered Austro-Hungarian war production. President Franklin Roosevelt’s proposal to extend the Lend-Lease Act to Austria-Hungary met with resistance even from his own party, but an impassioned speech by Harry Hopkins was able to secure the passage of the bill, and Austria-Hungary was able to manage the supply shortfall. In public recognition of the material support, King Otto commissioned a statue of an American factory worker entitled: “The Hands of Freedom.”

In a surprising and stunning move, Romania elected to send volunteer detachments in support of Austria-Hungary, which constituted themselves under Lipfert’s command as the Foreign Corps. This was done at the behest of the new king Michael. Carol II, who had long irritated his government with his wild, hedonistic lifestyle, had been deposed in a bloodless coup by his son, and declaring the need to stand against Axis oppression, sent volunteer forces to fight with the Austro-Hungarians. The Foreign Corps and the Austro-Hungarian Sixth Army set up their headquarters in Ljubjlana. Michael I also offered to mediate dialogue between Otto von Habsburg and Winston Churchill. The Copenhagen Conference was productive, with Austria-Hungary and Romania both welcomed into the Allies.

Hitler was reportedly furious. Coordination between the Austro-Hungarians and the British meant that he was facing a war on two fronts. Historians speculate on Hitler’s expectations, whether he had anticipated a greater result from Konrad Heinlein, that Otto von Habsburg would cede the Sudetenland rather than risk being encircled by the Axis, that previous bad blood between Austria-Hungary and the United Kingdom regarding Yugoslavia, or that Austria-Hungary would sue for peace following the successful landings at Zara. There are no surviving written records of the strategic objectives, but military historians consider this to have been one of the greatest strategic mistakes of the 20th century.

The Push Through Italy

With Greece re-captured and under Austro-Hungarian control, the Allied War Council met in London to discuss war strategy. Of the two Axis Powers, Germany possessed the more accomplished and capable army. France wanted to push into Italy, removing the weaker power before bringing all forces to bear on Germany. Austria-Hungary, by contrast, wanted reinforcements in Eastern Europe, to liberate Dalmatia before striking at Germany to the north. Italy, Marshall Luza, leader of the Austro-Hungarian Second Army Group, believed that the Italians were contained, argued: “If we should break the German back, Mussolini will surrender and the war will be over before autumn.” The United Kingdom agreed with France, stating that if Northern Italy were cleared, France could reinforce the battle lines in Dalmatia, while the Royal Navy could keep the Adriatic clear and prevent any reinforcements to the Axis lines. With any luck, once the Axis expedition was cut off from supply shipments from the mainland, they would surrender en masse before starvation began to bite. As an acknowledgement that Austria-Hungary had some of its territory occupied, Great Britain and France agreed to detach several divisions to help hold the battle lines in Austria-Hungary, setting up an expeditionary corps headquartered in Banja Luka.

In March 1940, the Italian campaign was kicked off in earnest. Austria Hungary ordered a push from the Second Army Group toward Venice, while France ordered a major assault toward Genoa and Milan, while sending a destroyer group to secure the Corsica-Sardinia strait and support an amphibious assault on the small Italian island. The United Kingdom prepared a naval invasion from Egypt, hoping to strike Sicily once Mussolini had sent his forces northward. By April, French forces had taken Milan, but Genoa had been reinforced by a large number of infantry and armor divisions, Mussolini’s elite. Genoa was taken, but it was hard fought. Austria-Hungary had better luck, pushing through Venice and beginning the push along the Adriatic Coast. The Second Army Group experiencing a stunning breakthrough, with Italian forces falling back to Florence and establishing a fighting position in the hilly terrain outside the city. Austro-Hungarian and French troops, along with detached British divisions, met at Bologna, and theater commanders agreed to exploit the Austro-Hungarian breakthrough, bypassing the fortified Italian fighting positions in Florence. May saw further Italian retreats as the Allied forces pushed into Ancona and the successful launch of the British invasion of Sicily and the fall of Palermo, which became the main naval staging yard for further Mediterranean operations. The Royal Navy successfully contested the Mediterranean, and by the end of May Italian ships found it incredibly difficult to leave port either in the west or the east.

Operations continued into June, although hot weather slowed the tempo. Dogged resistance in the hills of Florence had failed to dislodge the Italian positions, and Allied war planners feared a stalemate that would permit the German army to redouble production efforts, push south from Germany, and possibly threaten the war effort. British efforts to push from Sicily to the Italian mainland had similarly stalled. Bohemian Marshal Luza of the Second Army Group, always an aggressive commander, suggested pushing toward Rome instead, charging Richard Tesařík with the task. Tesařík’s idea was called Operation Saber, better known as the Corneo Needle, where an infantry force would push southeast from Ancona while the spearhead of light tanks and motorized infantry would push through the center of the Italian peninsula. The Italian field officer took the bait, dispatching a relief force from Anzio to support the defense of the east. Followed closely by French infantry, Tesařík’s forces began shelling Rome to the surprise of the Italian defenders. On 28 June, 1940, Rome fell to the advancing Allies. Disheartened, the Italians pulled further south, but the isolated Florentine hill forces were unable to regroup, digging in. The dogged Italian defenders fought for two months, during which the famous war memoir “Colline Rossa” was written. As the Italian Army began to crumble, King Victor Emmanuel seized control of the Italian Parliament, arrested Mussolini, and sought an armistice. On 27 August 1940, Italy surrendered to a joint Allied delegation. Hardline Fascist holdouts persisted, moving their provisional government to Crete, but the British Navy bottled them on their island, and they played no part in the remainder of the war.

Hitler’s Gamble, the German Lemon Squeeze, and the Postwar Order

With Italy lost, Hitler faced a losing war. Strategists within the Nazi council debated, with many suggesting making a peace overture, but Hitler refused to consider it. Instead, he embarked upon a daring gamble, a westward push through the Low Countries, bypassing the Maginot Line and threatening Paris. The prevailing theory among military historians is that Hitler hoped a display of strength would force a general ceasefire before the Allied armies could march north from Italy to threaten Germany. A few days before the Italian Army surrendered, Hitler attacked Belgium and the Netherlands. However, British cryptologists at GCHQ led by Alan Turing had uncovered the plans. Belgian and Dutch defenders had fortified their positions, reinforced by the British Army, and had been able to repulse Hitler’s plan. Disgusted by the German actions, the United Mexican States, under President Lázaro Cárdenas, joined the Allies, and sent a small expeditionary force to supplement the Low Countries defense.

The Austro-Hungarian army, having secured Italy, began the slow march north to the central European mountains, spilling over the Austrian border and pushing slowly toward Munich. British and Dutch forces advanced from Frisia while French forces began to emerge from their Maginot defenses and attacked southwestern Germany. Hitler’s force, spread out, were significantly outnumbered, and began to take heavy losses.

The Allies developed their plan as a broad pincer movement, for an aggressive attack moving both north and east, not stopping until they had received an unconditional surrender. General Bernard Montgomery had caused a slight diplomatic row when he wagered with Austro-Hungarian general Géza Lakatos that the British could take Berlin before the Austro-Hungarian even got there, to which he was privately censured by Churchill for antagonizing his coalition partner.

As September came, Austria-Hungary took Munich, where the First and Second Army Groups split, with the First marching north while the Second marched west to press German divisions stationed between the French and Austro-Hungarian lines together. It was here that the combined Allied offensive received the nickname “Lemon Squeeze.” In discussion with French reporters, an unknown sergeant said “Of course we’re going until we see the French on the other side! When you squeeze a lemon, you do not stop until there is nothing left but the rind!” By November 30, the Austro-Hungarian army proved the unknown sergeant correct, as they had closed the fronts save for a holdout force of 20 German divisions near the Swiss border. At a joint session of air command, British bombers volunteered to begin all-out strategic bombing including hard-to-fly night bombing raids, where the smaller Austro-Hungarian bombers would cover tactical bombing and free up the larger British planes for more important missions.

The Belgian-British-Dutch-French breakout in the west accomplished the most success in the German theater, sweeping through northern Germany, while the Austro-Hungarian northward attack had only reached Leipzig. General Lakatos, angered that Montgomery might win his bet, ordered a redoubled effort, and detached line troops to march across the Belgian front to Magedburg, and then to march east to attack Berlin. Three days after Christmas, Austro-Hungarian forces radioed to the joint Allied command outside Berlin that they were joining the assault, much to Montgomery’s chagrin. With 43 divisions outside the gates and Hitler out of communication, the fall of the German Reich came swiftly. On the fourth of January, 1941, Hitler’s body was found within his improvised command bunker, dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the German Reich formally surrendered.

While the war was devastating, the casualty count was much smaller than the Great War, with slightly over 3 million military casualties total, although this was only an 11-month conflict. At the Peace of Konigsberg, the Allied Powers set out their aims for post-war Europe. Greece was liberated and founded as the Hellenic Republic of Greece. Occupied Lithuiana was similarly reorganized, with Memel being returned. Austria-Hungary wanted to reinstate Victor Emmanuel as King of Italy and the territorial concessions of Venice, Istra, and South Tyrol, while the United Kingdom favored Ferrucio Parri and re-established borders. A compromise was hastily made, permitting the territorial concessions, but establishing Italy as a constitutional monarchy, with Victor Emmanuel having little political power. Germany was reorganized as a republic, with Konrad Adenaur becoming the first Chancellor of a newly democratic Germany. Austria-Hungary returned Albania to King Zog with much fanfare, a victory procession into his country. In less than a year, the threat of fascism was lifted from Europe, though tensions still ran high. Joseph Stalin eyed Polish territories and Bessarabia with hungry eyes, and the United Kingdom has taken a firm stand against the brutal oppression happening in Spain. Japan continues to threaten China in the Pacific, and both the United States and the United Mexican States worry about Venezuelan aggression in South America. War may come again, and the world may not be so lucky next time.

The Dual Monarchy Today in 1941

The Austro-Hungarian military is a modern and sophisticated fighting force. While not as large as the French or Red Army, the Habsburg army is a well-funded and well-equipped force with modern infantry, artillery, and armor divisions. Austro-Hungarian warfare is dominated by firepower theory, stressing a mobile defense, artillery barrages called in by forward observation units from advanced firebases, and an integrated support structure. This last notion is particularly important, as Austria-Hungary is famous for its support corps, among the most highly trained individuals in the military profession today. Austria-Hungary developed an extensive military engineering corps capable of breaching obstacles and building field fortifications to both protect its own and bypass the defenses of the enemy. The Royal Patrol School develops skilled reconnaissance squads, with its infamous “High and Low” course on mountain and forest recon being internationally notorious for its difficulty. An early adopter of military radio, the Royal Signal Corps helped to pioneer backpack-sized signals equipment and field telephones. Armor corps have dedicated maintenance divisions to keep tanks in repair, as early conflicts with Yugoslavia were littered with broken-down tanks causing delays in military timetables. Most highly prized, however, are the logistics and hospital corps, when one British general said: “If I get hurt, please let me be picked up by the Habsburgs!” These two were of special interest to King Otto, and he invested a great deal of capital into developing field surgery equipment and a highly educated logistics staff, recalling the grueling conditions suffered by Austro-Hungarian troops during the Great War. Austro-Hungarian military thinkers have emphasized the need for dedicated supply in both men and materiel, with logistics study mandatory in all officer academies. These developments came as a result of an extensive motorization program, with Otto von Habsburg famously declaring: “A modern war is a truck war,” and permitting the motorized and mechanized infantry divisions to name themselves the Hussar Corps, distinct from the Royal Hussars, a primarily ceremonial unit present at most Austro-Hungarian state functions.

Austria-Hungary also fields a small special forces program. Of particular note are the Royal Mountain Corps, based off the Alpini program in Italy. The Corps, often nicknamed the Skyscrapers or the Hold-Your-Breath Squad, often provide training and consultation to other nations on developing and maintaining a trained mountain warfare program, and inter-Allied drills on mountain warfare are often conducted in Austro-Hungarian territory. The Danubian Marine Corps primarily trains in river and marsh warfare, specializing in high-speed bridging operations.

On the sea, the Austro-Hungarian navy is not a true blue water navy. As much of the earlier Austro-Hungarian navy was disbanded, Austria-Hungary had little in the way of development with its navy, and naval warfare was often seen as a distant third priority compared to land and air warfare, much to Austro-Hungarian chagrin when the Axis were able to land forces in Zara. His Majesty’s Navy primarily acts as a coastal and Mediterranean force, primarily destroyers and cruisers and a small but well-established submarine force. King Otto, however, is looking to modernize the navy with a focus on aircraft carriers with destroyers acting as escort and heavy cruisers providing firepower from naval guns.

In the air, Austria-Hungary boasts a well-trained and well-equipped air force. The Austro-Hungarian Air Force’s most famous planes are its RMI-8 X/V and it’s RMI-16. The former is a heavy fighter, primarily an air superiority and bomber escort, a large, twin-engine heavy fighter, while the latter is a streamlined medium bomber. The Austro-Hungarian Air Force is a relatively small service, with an operational doctrine toward flexibility. Bomber pilots are expected to be able to perform at both strategic bombing and close air support missions. Drop-out rates for its Bomb School are high due to the intense demands of the course, but the pilots who successfully complete them are among the most decorated and talented members of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces.

Imgur Links for Full-Size, images are in the same order that they are in the AAR

Austria Hungary country map

Otto Assumes the Hungarian Crown

Austria Agrees to Unite with Hungary

Restoration of Austria-Hungary

Before the War Begins

The Italian Push

The German Lemon Squeeze

The Battle of Berlin

War Score and Participation

-SLAL

#hearts of iron 4 #hearts of iron iv #creative

33 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 4 years ago

Text

In 2020, The Deutschland Series is As Relevant As Ever

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The final season of the Deutschland spy series begins with an ending. In the opening episode of Deutschland 89, the Berlin Wall falls, giving East German citizens free movement to West Germany and beyond for the first time in decades. What follows in the eight-episode final season is a social study in how different people react when their reality is suddenly and fundamentally altered. In the year 2020, as the world continues to reel from the seismic changes COVID-19 has wrought, it’s an unexpectedly relatable experience.

“Deutschland 89 is really about how people have to reinvent themselves during a crisis,” says Deutschland series co-creator Joerg Winger. “So I think, in that way, it does reflect today, but that was not intentional.”

From the beginning, the Deutschland series—which launched in 2015 with Deutschland 83, continued in 2018 with Deutschland 86, and just concluded with Deutschland 89—has used history as a metaphor for contemporary politics. Because of this and because, as Faulkner famously wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past,” it has never been hard to find topical parallels in the Deutschland story, especially when the world skews unfortunately closer to the historic tensions depicted.

“I still remember when Joerg and I first started working on Deutschland 83, thinking, ‘Maybe we’ll have to remind people of the Cold War. Maybe they won’t remember any of this,’” says co-creator Anna Winger (who also co-created Netflix’s 2020 German-American drama Unorthodox). “And then the tension with Russia began again, and there was this sort of egocentric writer moment where you’re like, ‘Did I write it and make it happen? Why is this happening again?’ … Certainly, we couldn’t have predicted tension with Russia coming back, but I think that the polarization definitely, the idea that you’re on one side or you’re on the other side, and that there is this kind of way in which the world has become divided, we were definitely exploring that.”

Deutschland 83 follows East German kid Martin Rauch (Jonas Nay) as he is forced by his HVA agent aunt Lenora (Maria Schrader) and his estranged father Walter (Sylvester Groth) to become a spy in West Germany. Using the real-life Able Archer incident (which some historians believe is the closest we’ve come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis) as setting, the first season is a fast-paced yet complex cautionary tale of what can happen when we lose track of the bigger picture in favor of political allegiances.

On a more character-driven level, Deutschland 83 is the story of a young man caught between a desperation to stay alive so he can return home to his ill mother and pregnant girlfriend and a desire to keep the world from erupting into nuclear disaster. Because of this, much of the success of that first season and moving forward relied on the casting of the overwhelmed yet capable Martin. When Nay read the script for the Deutschland 83 pilot, he knew he wanted the part.

“I think that the first episode of the whole series is a masterpiece in throwing you directly into something,” says Nay. “I think, dramaturgy-wise, it’s really brilliant. For me, as a reader, I was so addicted. I immediately wanted to know where it went and I so deeply wanted to play that part of Martin.”

Later, Nay would find out that Anna Winger had his picture on the wall during the writing process, imagining him as Martin, but Nay didn’t know that when he went for the part.

“I hadn’t played something of that genre, or anything comparable to that before,” says Nay. “So I don’t really know where she had the impression from that this could be a part for me, actually. The things I shot before were more like society drama, feature films. It was really, really, really different.”

Joerg Winger says that Nay was always their first choice.

“There was a discussion we had at a later point with the directors in 83, who were thinking, maybe we need someone who’s more of a conventional hero, like a young James Bond kind of actor,” says Joerg Winger. “But I think, for us, it was really important that he has something vulnerable since one of the tweaks of the spy genre in Deutschland 83 is that it’s a spy show combined with a coming-of-age drama, and Jonas has the vulnerability and almost the boyishness and innocence. He’s a very good, solid person. And that translates also, I think, into his performance.”

The initial idea for the series came from Joerg Winger’s own military service experience during the 80s as a conscripted Bundeswehr soldier in West Germany, intercepting messages from Russian troops in the German Democratic Republic. But, for many people watching the series who were born after 89, a divided Germany may be hard to imagine.

“With young people, it’s almost like what you learn in school ends with World War II, and then you never really got to the Cold War,” says Anna Winger. “So, for a lot of young people, at least in Germany, they would say to us, ‘This is like science fiction.’ It’s like, ‘Imagine a world, and there’s a wall that goes down the middle of Berlin, and West Berlin is cut off from supplies, and you can’t get across it.’ And you know, if you were to describe all that to anyone who was born in Berlin since 1989, it would sound absurd. It’s like, ‘And the dinosaurs roamed the earth.’ It’s very crazy to them. So, in a funny way, I’ve always thought the show is a little bit like the past as science fiction.”

Nay, who was born in 1990, days before the reunification of Germany, is one of those people.

“I think there’s actually a lot that changed my awareness of close German history, in particular the 80s, of course,” says Nay. “I remember that when I read the first series, the first question that came to my mind was: ‘Were we really so close to a nuclear war? Would anybody have told me if it was so close? Isn’t that crazy that nobody told me before? Is it real or is it just made up, to increase attention?’ I was like, ‘OK, it seems a little odd to me that we were close before to a nuclear war and I never heard that before.’ I’m really curious now what is going on behind closed walls, what I don’t know about nowadays.”

While all three seasons of the Deutschland series explores many of the same themes, the three-year time jump built into the fabric of the show means each season gets a soft narrative reset for its characters and setting. When asked about the choice to have three-year time jumps, Joerg Winger said it was somewhat incidental. Because of Able Archer and some of the Neue Deutsche Welle music circa 1983, the Wingers knew they wanted to start their story in 1983. They also knew that they wanted to do a trilogy and that it should end in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Because of this, of the three settings, 1986 is the most random.

“I think it’s a little bit like the Buddhist wisdom: wherever you dig, if you dig for long enough, you’ll find something,” says Joerg Winger of the 1986 setting. “We were a little bit nervous about the 86 question. When we started 86, we were like, ‘OK, so what are we going to find in ’86?’ But then there’s just so much.”

When we catch back up with Martin in Deutschland 86, he has been exiled from East Germany for three years, living in Angola where he teaches English at an orphanage. While the other two seasons in the story keep their focus relatively tight on East and West Germany, Deutschland 86 expands its Cold War scope to visit places like Libya and Paris, where geopolitical tensions are manifesting in different ways but are still part of the same global story.

“We started writing 86 the day after the Trump election,” says Anna Winger, “and I remember feeling really focused on looking at capitalism, because the story of 86 is kind of about the capitalist core of the engine that kept the communist regime going. And you see all these guys who are holding on to what they’ve managed to build at all costs, even though it’s all really coming apart.”

The Deutschland storyline comes to fruition in Deutschland 89. Three years following the events of Deutschland 86, the East German government is in even more dire straits. They are out of money, and the people are protesting. The final season is set against the backdrop of the collapse of the East German government.

“People didn’t know what was going to happen for a few months, and that is a very unusual situation,” says Anna Winger of the time period. “And also, for all these spies, they were really good spies, and suddenly, they had no country, the goals were completely unclear, and they were in the same place. The crazy thing about people in Berlin who live on the East side is they haven’t gone anywhere, but everything else has changed. It’s as if their country completely changed, and they’re still living on the same piece of earth, and that’s wild.”

The Deutschland series may explore East German life in the 1980s at different stages of Communist collapse, but the parallels to the experience of living in today’s crumbling capitalism are striking.

“I think as we came towards the end of the arc of the trilogy, certainly we got deeper and deeper into exploring late-stage capitalism and how that’s the patriarchy holding onto power in any sort of regime,” says Anna Winger. “We’re writing a show about late-stage communism or socialism, but it still has a lot of parallels to late-stage capitalism.”

In the midst of it all, is Martin Rauch, an audience surrogate for an everyday person just trying to live a good life with the people he loves amidst political and social turmoil. By Deutschland 89, Martin is understandably much more jaded than his 83-era self, but he has also somehow held onto his humanity.

“What Anna and Joerg always told me was that when they created Martin and how they wanted him to succeed, he should always have this moral compass that he’s following,” says Nay. “In a big contrast to all the people around him, like [his aunt] Lenora or [his father] Schweppenstette, that they are following rules given from somebody else or they’re following their idealism, their socialist idea. Martin had the chance of getting a pretty uncolored picture of East and West, of both the states and both the sides. He had to find his own [way].”

Martin’s ability to hold onto his humanity, to maintain some kind of admirable moral compass despite all of the things he has been through, is where much of the optimism in the Deutschland series ultimately lies.

“I always saw it like Martin being in the middle and people from left and right trying to pull him in directions and he’s always trying to see or weigh out which is best for him and also for people around him,” says Nay. “He’s like, yeah, it’s a hero thing I guess. I don’t know. Yeah, Joerg and Anna wanted Martin to keep that. So it was kind of a challenge to, of course, let Martin grow up and let him harden and let him be very, very suspicious, more and more, not trusting anybody because what he learns is that, if he trusts somebody, he’s going to be betrayed so he has to keep it in himself. That is the development that he goes through through all the seasons. Then, given this little lovable touch of hero-ness and moral compass, not losing that. It was kind of a balance act I would say. I gave my very best.”

Ultimately, the Deutschland series ends as it told its story: thoughtfully, and with a fundamental empathy that doesn’t guarantee a happy ending but rather something better. The possibility of holding onto one’s humanity through pain and suffering and amongst forces so much larger than any one person. In 2020, that may be the flavor of happy ending we need most of all.

“In 89, the shit’s hit the fan, and it’s really over, and people are scrambling to redefine themselves,” says Anna Winger. “But I suppose, if there’s a message to the whole thing, it’s that there are possibilities in chaos. And this is truly something I think we can learn from Germany: is that maybe there’s the possibility of reinvention that is positive, that there’s hope in reinvention, and that maybe when things come apart, there’s a chance for something good to come out of it.”

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The entirety of the Deutschland series is now available to watch on Hulu.

The post In 2020, The Deutschland Series is As Relevant As Ever appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2JLtG55

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

3 notes · View notes

bopinion · 5 years ago

Text

2020 / 41

Aperçu of the week:

Correct understanding of a thing and misunderstanding the same thing are not completely mutually exclusive (Franz Kafka).

Bad news of the week:

A few years ago I did not even know the term "alternative facts". And "Fake News" I mainly referred to alleged affairs of minor celebrities in the yellow press. That can change so quickly...

While in Germany it is enough to resign (or to have to resign) from a minor political post if you leave the path of political correctness drunk at a carnival event, the USA teaches us completely different standards. The Washington Post counts more than 20,000 lies from the commander-in-chief in less than a full term. And this is not even considered a scandal, but merely a question of style in the political discussion.

Scientists from the U.S. University of Cornell last week completed the study of 38 million English-language media articles from around the world regarding Corona in the period January to May 2020. The result: Trump has contributed like no other to the spread of false news. Leader of the free world? My ass!

The worst thing about this is that this role model function has relativized the value of truth. Everything is only a personal matter of opinion now, sources are dispensable, facts only optional. And this in an age in which anyone can publish whatever on any medium.

My personal low of the last days is a false report of Covidiots in social media, in which it is claimed that a six-year-old girl in Lower Franconia died from wearing a mask. Many now deny this simple but effective remedy against the pandemic with reference to it. And the police must now seriously appeal to responsible citizens to stick to the truth and not to spread such bullshit unreflected. So it has already come that far...

By the way: Trump lies with Corona in a military hospital. Even though I don't wish anybody anything bad in principle, I can't help thinking that he should learn something from this. After all, he has himself to blame for this handicap in the last few meters of the election campaign. And I have to rethink about the existential question of fate...

Good news of the week:

A decisive factor in fighting the coronavirus or its spread is the tracing of infection chains in order to be able to break them. For this purpose, in many countries, everyone has to leave their identity when visiting restaurants, cultural sites, public institutions, etc., so that these chains can be traced if a local infection is subsequently detected.

And what happens? Darth Vader drank a beer in the corner pub, Donald Duck was in the local community library and Michael Jackson returned from his trip to a risk area. A successful joke? The protection of personal rights? No, that is simply sabotage of the protection of the population as a whole.

Bavaria now imposes a fine of Euro 250,-- for false names in Corona lists. Apparently, some people are only helped by force, like a few weeks ago when wearing mouth and nose protectors when shopping or using public transport. So much for personal responsibility in society.

The positive aspect of this situation is that reason is apparently still capable of winning a majority after all. According to a survey the day before yesterday (Infratext Dimap for ARD), 85% of Germans are of the opinion that upper limits should also apply to private parties. And 63% are also in favor of wearing masks in public space, i.e. on the streets. Because 92% believe that the crisis can only be overcome with solidarity. So there is such a thing as swarm intelligence after all,... ;-)

By the way: in Germany today 30 years of reunification are celebrated. With it the cold war was finally buried. And even if there is still homework to be done (the notorious "wall in the heads"), any form of community and togetherness is always and everywhere preferable to any form of isolation and polarization.

Sense of achievement of the week:

Got an email from Tumblr with a medal for "100 posts on Tumblr" since the beginning of the year. Many thanks to all who accompany me on this way. Even though I write mainly for myself, it makes me feel good if others also like the way I organize my thoughts in this crazy world. Thank you very much!

#aperçu #thoughts #bad news #good news #achievement #tumblr #100 posts #trump #coronavirus #mouth nose mask #fake news #alternative facts #reunification #chain of infection #contact tracing #franz kafka #germany #swarm intelligence

1 note · View note

antoine-roquentin · 6 years ago

Link

The fissuring of the German left after Agenda 2010 opened the door to the CDU’s recovery of power. Though Die Linke and Merkel are radically different expressions of post-reunification politics, they condition each other. Despite her formidable reputation, Merkel is not a successful electoral campaigner. In 2005, at the height of the turmoil and indignation stirred up by Agenda 2010, she managed only to inch the SPD out, 35.2 to 34.2 per cent. Her brand of neoliberalism stirred anxiety among CDU voters as much as Schröder’s did on the left. Only once, in 2009, did she win a vote share large enough to enable a centre-right coalition with the FDP. For three of her four governments, Merkel has relied on a grand coalition with the SPD. The impact on the SPD has been deeply ambiguous. On the one hand, except for the interlude of 2009-13, the SPD has been in government in Berlin for 21 years continuously. On the other hand the loss of identity, already visible under Schröder, has been ever more pronounced.

Governing with Merkel is dangerous. She is no ordinary conservative. Paying relentless attention to opinion polls, she omnivorously absorbs the agendas of her partners and opponents. This gives hardline conservatives little to cheer about. In electoral terms the CDU, like the SPD, has suffered a serious decline. And as conservative strategists have long worried, Merkel’s move to the centre opens space for a hard right alternative, an opportunity that the AfD seized in 2015. But the truth is that given the alignment of German political forces, Merkel simply did not need the right wing. The SPD has supplied her with the votes she needed to govern from the centre. As both parties have discovered, access to power in Berlin today depends less on your absolute share of the vote than on your place in the coalitional algebra.

The SPD was by no means a passive victim of these developments. For 15 years it has chosen to double down on the Schröder agenda. In 2009 the party fought a losing election with Steinmeier, the orchestrator of Agenda 2010, as its Spitzenkandidat. Then in 2013 the party grandees nominated Peer Steinbrück, who as finance minister in 2008 took responsibility for the bank bailouts. He can also claim credit for the Schuldenbremse, the ‘debt brake’ amendment to the constitution which throttles public spending. The notorious ‘schwarze Null’ (the fiscal surplus), popularly associated with Wolfgang Schäuble, is actually a creation of the SPD. Perversely, this fiscal discipline bears most heavily on the weakest Länder, including North Rhine-Westphalia and Bremen, which were once bastions of the SPD. It was not until 2013, after its third consecutive loss, that the SPD made any effort to change direction.

Under the new rules of the Berlin game, losing to Merkel in 2013 didn’t mean the SPD was out of power. It meant that it governed with her. And the social democrats extracted a heavy price. Not only the foreign ministry, but justice, the economy, labour and social affairs, family and youth and environmental policy were all in the hands of the SPD, at least some of whom were now determined to distance themselves from Agenda 2010. Their key demand, in the face of howls of protest from employers, was a minimum wage.

In the heyday of the German model, when wages were set by collective bargaining arrangements, there was no need for such regulations. But in the new era of flexible, low-paid work, the minimum wage of €8.50 an hour brought relief to some four million workers when it was introduced in 2015. Combined with the continued growth of the German economy and other incremental changes to the benefit system, it has lifted the acute economic insecurity of the early 2000s. Nachtwey’s dark vision of social crisis and downward mobility better describes the situation a decade ago than in Germany today. Even in the east, conditions are improving. If the AfD is a conflagration born of the socioeconomic crisis, it is of the slow-burning variety. It’s also clear, however, that the SPD gets no credit for its earnest efforts to rebalance the Agenda 2010 model. The party’s fate will be decided not by its success or failure in delivering specific social policies, but by its ability to tie its identity to a compelling diagnosis of Germany’s current problems and a credible account of its role in the recent past.

For the 2017 campaign, the party apparatchiks plumped for a fresh face – Martin Schulz, a former president of the European Parliament. As described by Markus Feldenkirchen in Die Schulz Story, despite his endorsement of Agenda 2010 in years gone by, Schulz’s rocky personal biography and folksy manner vouched for the authenticity of his commitment to a more egalitarian politics. But rather than giving him a clear mandate on social inequality and Europe, which would have played to his strengths, the party managers decided to pit his personal appeal against Merkel’s. For a delirious few weeks it seemed that it might work. But by the summer his political stock had collapsed. The election was a disaster. Not only was it the worst result in a national election since 1949, there was not a single Land in which the SPD scored more than 30 per cent. Of the voters the party had retained, a quarter were over the age of 70.

The election results in September 2017 were bad for the SPD, but the aftermath was worse. Merkel tried, first, for an unprecedented ‘Jamaica’ coalition – the CDU/CSU (black) with the FDP (yellow) and the Greens. After six weeks the FDP walked away and the talks broke down. That left the options of new elections – unattractive given surging support for the AfD – or another Große Koalition. The SPD was bitterly divided. Kevin Kühnert, the leader of the party’s 70,000-strong youth wing, mobilised against the GroKo. But he was fought to a standstill by a powerful lobby in favour of it, headed by Olaf Scholz, a party boss from Hamburg, and Andrea Nahles, once on the party’s left wing, who became leader in April 2018.

Once again the SPD extracted a steep price for its co-operation with Merkel. To the horror of conservatives and the business lobby, the chancellor turned a blind eye while SPD ministers launched a raft of new social and environmental policies. But once again, the SPD in government with Merkel lacks credibility. This year’s European elections gave the party its worst result in a national ballot since 1887. And the data are worse when broken down demographically. Among voters under thirty, the SPD scores no more than 10 per cent. While Scholz and other senior SPD ministers remain in office, Nahles has resigned from all her party positions. Until the next party conference, scheduled for December, the SPD is without a leader. There are no candidates. It seems inconceivable that anyone who backs the coalition with the CDU could be a candidate. But an anti-GroKo candidate would hasten a new election, which is a terrifying prospect.

What is remarkable – the third big story in German politics in the last four years – is who has benefited from the SPD’s collapse. Not the CDU, whose results are by its own standards barely less disastrous than the SPD’s. Outside the east, the AfD seems to have hit a ceiling at around 10 per cent. Die Linke, worried about competition on the right, has impaled itself on arguments about immigration policy. The FDP’s refusal to take a share of power in 2017 has left it sidelined. The great beneficiaries of the upheaval are the Greens.

Immediately after the collapse of the Jamaica coalition talks in 2017, the Greens’ poll numbers surged. In the recent European elections their record result of 20.5 per cent put them in second place for the first time in a national poll. That breakthrough seems only to have increased their momentum. They now regularly poll over 25 per cent, ahead of the CDU. Their leaders, Robert Habeck and Annalena Baerbock, are inexperienced but charismatic. They clearly stand for the party’s shift to the mainstream. The Greens have established a business council, frequented by senior management from the chemical giant BASF, Accenture consulting and the reinsurance group Munich Re. The party that once represented the ecofundamentalist fringe no longer shrinks from the project of greening German capitalism.

The most widely discussed option for the future is a Black-Green coalition: a modernised CDU and a moderated Green party in a new-style centrist formation. Something of the kind operates in Baden-Württemberg. But it’s unclear whether the Green base in the rest of the country will tolerate such a conservative deal. On the same day as the European elections, Bremen held a vote, which brought another historic defeat for the SPD. Having ruled the city uninterruptedly since 1945, it took only 25 per cent of the vote. The ‘winner’ was the CDU. But it cannot govern alone, which makes the Greens the kingmakers. To the dismay of the party’s Berlin leadership, rather than talk to the conservatives, the Bremen Greens entered talks for a Green-Red-Red coalition, with the defeated SPD and Die Linke.

Bremen, a heavily indebted post-industrial port, is the smallest state of the republic. But if its coalition model were to catch on in Berlin, it would cause an earthquake. The Red-Red-Green option is the one that the SPD leadership, in better times, refused to countenance. Now it is one of the few possibilities left. And it is all the more significant now that the CDU has to deal with its own split on the right wing. The CDU’s reaction to the news from Bremen was telling. Merkel’s designated successor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, immediately denounced the move, declaring that the Greens had revealed their true left-wing nature, and voters who hoped to bring about a change of government by supporting the Greens were naively opening the door to Die Linke. But this rhetoric cannot disguise the difficulty of the CDU’s position. What options has the retiring Merkel left her party? Given the CDU’s diminished polling, a coalition with the FDP alone is no longer enough. Would the CDU want to pursue an ‘Austrian option’ – a coalition with the AfD? Such a scenario is conceivable at the Länder level in the east. In regional elections in Saxony and Brandenburg later this year, the AfD is likely to consolidate its position as the leading party of the right. But at the federal level there is nothing that would do more to rally a majority for a Red-Red-Green coalition than the prospect of a CDU-AfD connubio.

23 notes · View notes