Germans don't realize what they have lost

The National Post (Canada) ^ | April 14, 2003 | Alexandra Richie

[MadIvan]

BERLIN - The sun was shining, the linden trees were starting to show a little green and, as ever, there was an anti-war demonstration down by the Brandenburg Gate. I headed out into the crowd of 15,000 or so amidst the fluttering rainbow flags, the "No Blood for Oil" placards, the usual array of Palestinian scarves and rubber George Bush masks and even one or two posters reading "Michael Moore for President." And then it struck me. The signs were the same as they had been two weeks ago, so were the chants and the people. In downtown Berlin, at least, it was almost as if the war hadn't started at all.

I stopped a young student with a "Shame on You Mr. Bush" poster and asked him why he was there. 'To protest against American imperialism," he said earnestly. And what of the pictures of Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein? "Didn't you see the looting?" he replied. I tried another protester, a young woman in a red costume and with rouge on her cheeks. "I am proud to be German again," she told me. "Our history has told us that all war is wrong." War against dictators too? "They have to be removed by other means," she replied.

I wasn't going to bring up words like "appeasement," but for a brief moment I was reminded of the days when I lived in proto-Stalinist East Berlin and would cross the Wall into the West only to run into demonstrators protesting against the "illegal American occupation" of the city.

This particular form of political naïveté is not new in Berlin, but in the past, the West German political class tended to ignore such attitudes. Not any more, on the contrary, it now seems Gerhard Schroeder has become their champion.

This weekend, as American troops headed towards Tikrit, Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, and Schroeder met in St. Petersburg "to discuss the future of Iraq," as if it was they who had won the war.

Neither France nor Russia had much to lose by attending the conference and calling for the United States to step back after winning the war. But Germany did.

Chirac was en forme, saying of the U.S. success in Iraq that "even in bad we can find good," and stating that "only the United Nations" will have a "political, economic, administrative and humanitarian" role to play after the war. Putin, clearly suffering from amnesia about Russia's role in Chechnya, was equally hostile, going so far as to accuse the United States of "colonialism."

The U.S. State Department was said to be "extremely annoyed" by the meeting and Colin Powell pointed out that the United States had not gone to war merely to pass all responsibility on to the UN afterwards. But Chirac's raison d'être is to define France as a great power whose role is to oppose the United States. And Russia, having lost superpower status, has to insist on an important role for the UN since the permanent seat on Security Council is one of the last remaining bastions of power in the international arena. It is also in Russia's national interest to cause rifts both in NATO and in the European Union.

For Germany, however, the St. Petersburg summit will go down in history as one of the great follies of its history. Schroeder does not seem to understand that both France and Russia are taking advantage of Germany's naive pacifism. Before the Iraq war, Germany was in an enviable position. Unlike the French and the Russians, Germans seemed to be comfortable with their reduced role in the world and did not "long for Empire." Germany was the wealthiest state in Europe with a strong position in the EU and excellent relations with the United States -- indeed a decade ago it appeared that it would be Germany, not Britain, that would be America's main ally in Europe. But the Chancellor has thrown that all away.

Schroeder first jumped into this hole by fighting for re-election on an anti-American ticket and then going on to oppose war under any circumstances, even if sponsored by the UN Security Council. The trouble is, he's still digging.

At the summit this weekend, Schroeder told the United States that the reconstruction of Iraq "must take place through the UN although obviously the details will have to be discussed with the coalition as well." Needless to say, the United States has ignored this diktat, announcing instead that the four countries which contributed fighting ground troops to the war -- namely the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland -- will play the leading role in the transitory administration of Iraq, thank you very much, Herr Schroeder.

Germans claim to have learned the lessons of history, but on the streets of Berlin today the irony that their country is turning its back on the United States in favour of the likes of France, Russia, China and Syria -- countries engaged in places such as Ivory Coast, Chechnya, Tibet and Lebanon -- indicates that they haven't learned quite as much from the past as they would like to think.

When asked in St. Petersburg about the reasons for the U.S.-German rift, Schroeder shot back: "I don't want to speak about the past." For a German politician in the process of wrecking the post-war consensus, it was the wrong answer.

[Amalie]

Hey, pal, we did not start this thing (Saddam did), but we sure plan to finish it.

[dfwgator]

Time to lecture these guys on the Berlin Airlift and the 31 US Servicemen who lost their lives to keep Berlin from starving from the RUSSIANS.

[SarahW]

Yes, we're really heroes.

[expatguy]

bump

[mass55th]

From my WWII desk calendar:

On this day in 1945, the Soviet government announces that German citizens are to be shipped into Russia to help rebuild the cities, railroads, and roads their army destroyed.

Hmmm. Maybe we should start shipping in Germans, Russians and Frenchmen to rebuild Iraq...especially Russians and Frenchmen since they were so helpful to Saddam's regime after the sanctions were in place.

[mass55th]

Add Syria to that list as well.

[Billthedrill]

Same old lies, just another broken record. Iraq was not under U.S. control at any point during the 80s, you might just as well give that silly story up. As for the world being a more dangerous place than it was in the time of uncontrolled terrorism, that is simply untrue. It's much safer for anyone who isn't trying to kill us. That was the point of the war, and it's come to pass. You have a problem with that?

[Maelstrom]

Your state has erred.

A lot of countries used to sponsor terror groups. Their support has diminished, and will further diminish when Iraq is restored as a US ally.

The bin Laden's of the world are on notice. Doing nothing does not stop terrorism, so now they can expect to be hunted down in their roach motels and destroyed, utterly.

The UN, if you hadn't noticed, now consists primarily of tin-horn dictatorships. It cannot help but fail. The only world peace that these dictatorships can provide is the absolute peace provided by a tyrannical stranglehold on liberty. Enjoy it if you have it.

[SarahW]

France and Russia are the main supporters of that evil regime; they are the ones who provided arms.

If we chose Saddam over the Ayatollahs, if we had anything to do with propping him up, that's all the more responsibility for us to bring him down. Create a monster, you must destroy it. However, France more than any country tried to turn Iraq into a client state. It is motivated purely by self-interest at the expense of the world and the Iraqi's brutalized by the Ba'ath super-race thugs. It chose a world with Saddam in it as a better than a world without Saddam.

Perhaps war could have been averted altogether if France had stood united with the US and said to him, disarm or be destroyed. Instead it gave succor to his regime and led Saddam to believe that he could prevail.

As far as mopping up terrorist-sponsoring states, Iraq was the best place to start. I doubt it is the end.

A lot of people think the UN was always a lousy idea.
More do now.
Certainly it's role is in question.

[McGavin999]

You're darned right we're proud. We've freed a people living under the boot of tyranny. You should know about tyranny don't you. You are the same people who stood by and hid your heads while millions of people, of all races and religions, were massacred. You just pretended it wasn't happening, just like you're doing right now. You haven't learned, you haven't changed. Germany is a nation of moral cowards.

[EaglesUpForever]

"Our history has told us that all war is wrong."

Someone pointed out that while france has malicious intent in their "anti-war" stance (i.e., they would love to see Israel destroyed and enjoyed oil and nuclear deals with Saddam), Germany's opposition to the war is more truly "anti-war" (in the sense of "all war is wrong") and a bit less "pro-Saddam." Can almost forgive these misguided souls.

[Kadric]

In a word YES.

Would you prefer a ground war with out the air support? What would you be saying once you had seen the results the cities and towns leveled by artillery because of 1 or 2 targets that could be taken out with smart bombs?

In my mind the question is not was the war necessary, but what will the politicians do with the victory.

[chilepepper]

The US was allied to Saddam in order to contain Islamic Fundamentalism and its corollary, Islamic state sponsored terrorism.

Saddam, part of the socialist Ba'ath regime, decided to become another Stalin, and joined the socialist terrorists (you know, the Shining Path, the Baader-Meinhof, the IRA, the FARC, the Chilean MIR, the Red Brigades, Japanese Red Army Faction, the Hizbollah, the Libyans, the Basque separatists, the Phillipine insurgents, the Sandanistas, Carlos the Jackal...and most recently Al Qaeda.) All of these are networked together and originally received training and often funds from Moscow. Saddam joined them, and offered them resources and support from his government, while at the same time trying to get WMD.

The sea change is as follows, and is very narrow:

if as a nation you sponsor terrorism, you are in our sights, and you had better prepare your defenses. we will hunt you down and kill you, just as we already know you are trying to kill us. lets see who does the job first...

America is Mr.Nice-Guy no more...

[JDGreen123]

Great article and analysis. Of course we forced pacifism on Germany and Japan and now we might need both as military allies. It is kind of scary to see the clouds swirling. Are we looking at the expansion of this war to "world war" status?

We see the allies forming: US, UK, Israel, Japan, Some Eastern European Countries. We also see the axis forming: France, Germany, Russia, North Korea, the Muslim World. I am not sure where China would fit. They could be on either side or could sit it out and claim the leftovers. This could get ugly in a hurry if sparks continue to fly.

[section9]

There are those who go through life and play the fool. Then there are those who open their mouths and immediately remove all doubt....

hmmm yeah, but this state was Americas best friend when it was under US Control and fighting against Iran during the 80ies. and by the way...there are a lot of countries that sponsor terror groups....are you willing to "democrate" them all or just the ones that have oil and no state of the art army?

Your history is all wrong. We supported Iraq only to the extent that the Iraqi state could survive and not be conquered by Islamic Persia. In so doing, we were acting in our national interest and in the interests of the Europeans. We did not start that war. Saddam did. And we sold Saddam very few weapons. It was mostly the Soviets, the Frogs, and of course, the Krauts.

As to the other goons out there; we're more than willing to undo the bad guys. Sometimes you use different means to achieve the same end. Of course, the Eurotrash would prefer to use no means to achieve a desirable end. The Eurotrash call this self-righteous bullshit "diplomatic" means. Clear-headed folk call this for what it is: appeasement.

you won the war (WOW!!!) ...but if you think that you reduced the danger of terror, youre really naive. now all the bin ladens have another great argument to bust you.

Yes, we did win the war. Which is more than I can say for the Germans or the French, who haven't done much since, say, 1870. We took a stand against evil. The Frogs and the Kraut decided to look the other way. History will hold you in contempt, of course, as it held Chamberlain and Deladier in the wake of the Munich crisis.

The Bin Ladens of this world are coming after us, anyway. So we take a leaf from the Talmud. We get up earlier and go out and kill them first!

We have taken a support element of Al Qaeda off the chessboard. We shall show the Arab world a different way. Maybe not a better way, but a different way. Unlike the Europeans, who would have turned the other way while the boot slowly ground into the face of the Iraqi people in order to do business with the Dictator.

and why did the world take so much time and energy to install the UNO, when bushrumsfeldcheneywolfowitz comes along and ignore it? This is much more dangerous for word peace than any terrorist groups.

The "world" (that is, Roosevelt) installed the UN in the wake of the Second World War in a fit of misguided Wilsonian idealism. The UN has done very little that can be considered constructive since 1945. The reconstruction of Europe and Japan after the war were American projects that had little UN input. However, since the 1960's, the UN has become a squalid dictator's club.

You won the war, but you lost a lot more.

PS: Where is the cause for the war?

Oh, just go away and shut your piehole.

You ass-clowns took no stand, have no courage, have no character, and have no honor. You would gladly lick the boot of any strongman who would come along and offer you "peace, land, and bread". You've done so before. You will do so again. This Bruxelles experiment is merely the latest example of Europe's romance with supranational fascism.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[prairiebreeze]

...but if you think that you reduced the danger of terror, youre really naive. now all the bin ladens have another great argument to bust you.

Your premise doesn't seem to be born out with Kim Jong Il. The mouthy little North Korean has agreed to meet with Japan, China, South Korea.

Prairie

[prairiebreeze]

Good post Chris.

Prairie

[Khepera]

i support the invasion and cleansing of the entire middle east. Then all those countries that have worked against us. Then little worms like you can be handled by free people.

[STFrancis]

Excellent Reply...

A lot of Germans are disgusted about Schroeders doings in Germanys name. If they could he would get a no-confidence vote and be thrown out. That can only happen though if members of his own party or the Greens vote against him and that is as unlikely as Democratic Senators voting for Impeachment against Clinton.

The mood regarding this is getting quite grim. That's why Merkel's trip and meeting with the Administration was so novel in Germany.

Germany's stance is truly a Anti-war stance and that what got Schroeder elected. Not an anti-American but an Anti-War stance... But then again... People are seeing Schroeder now more and more for what he truly is... A commie with Clintonesque behaviour....

And don't underestimate the role of the left wing press in Germany. Schroeder married one of their own and therefore get's cut lots of slack. His support in his own party is eroding quickly but they will not get rid of him cause then they would loose their own powerbase.

Realize though that with more and more local elections they are loosing more and more of their base. Loosing BIG in Lower Saxony and Hessen was just a start...

Technoir: Was du hier sagst glaubst du doch nicht selber????