Andrew Stroehlein again has proved his anti-German sentiments
Dear Mr. Culik,
could you please publish my reaction to Andrew Stroehlein: A Tribal State. In: Britske Listy, March 11 1998?
I am Research Associate at the Institute of Eastern European History, University of Cologne and editor-in-chief of the German-English scientific journal ETHNOS-NATION which is dedicated to contemporary ethnic and nationality questions in Europe (links below).
Thank you very much
Andrew Stroehlein again has proved his anti-German sentiments
While it is unquestionable that the "ius sanguinis" is as absurd as the idea that today's descendants of German immigrants to Russia in the 18th century who do not even speak German belong to the German nation. And I do consider it a crime that persons who are born in Germany, but whose parents or even grandparents came to Germany from other countries, are denied German citizenship.
But to state that the Germans are a perfect example for a nationalist and racial society is nothing but nonsense, born in the head of someone who obviously takes any chances to denounce Germany and the Germans.
Take alone the following paragraph:
"After the war, West German society decided to re-enforce the idea of nationhood despite the abundance of horrifying evidence showing quite clearly what that concept can lead to. The purpose of conceptually maintaining and re-enforcing the idea of German nationhood was to allow individual Germans to wash their hands of their individual guilt during the Nazi era. The notion that "the nation is guilty" takes the onus off the individual, and the individual thus need not contemplate his own crimes during the period. Guilt is transferred upward to the mythical 'nation'."
One might argue that de-nazification in the FRG could have been more radical (although I hold the view that this would only have been possible, if the Morgenthau-Plan was realized and Germany was reduced to a agrarian society). Stroehlein’s claim however, the "West German society decided to re-enforce the idea of nationhood despite the abundance of horrifying evidence showing quite clearly what that concept can lead to" doesn’t make any sense in the first place. As far as I know, German politicians on both sides of the "iron curtain" were strictly under control of the allied powers, which very much influenced the development of the two German societies emerging after World War II. And I regard it as highly ignorant not to take into consideration that the majority of the mothers and fathers of the „Grundgesetz" were by no means nationalists and racists.
It might be interesting to Stroehlein to read the guidelines for history teachers in secondary schools which were written since the foundation of the FRG. I did. And I went to school in North Rhine-Westphalia during the 70s and 80s, where I learned very much about the Nazi-ideology and the horrible crimes committed by Germans during the Third Reich. And I definitely wasn't driven towards any idea of nationhood. On the contrary: Talking in favor of categories like nation was very compromising in West Germany still in the Eighties (see the "Historikerstreit" in 1986/87). I don’t deny a change in the German consciousness initiated and driven forward by the Kohl government, especially since the beginning of the fatal unification process. Nationalism and racism undoubtedly exist in Germany, and may be growing. But as far as my personal experience goes, it is definitely not stronger and more unpleasant than in any other European country.
I agree to Stroehlein that quite a lot old Germans are not willing to contemplate on their personal guilt during the Nazi era. It is annoying, but I consider it to be a human and not a specifically German behavior. The idea, however, that personal responsibility for the crimes committed in the 30s and 40s has been transferring to some mythical nation doesn’t match my observations: The old Germans I know, who do not want to see their personal guilt, simply deny any German guilt at all.
As far as my Generation of West Germans is concerned Stroehlein's statements are outrageous. Only night long discussions with American friends and historians in Prague, brought me to the conclusion that I have to stop to feel personally responsible for the Nazi crimes. And I am quite positive that I am no rare exception: Most of the German students and scholars, who went to study for some time somewhere in Central or Eastern Europe and talked to me about this topic, confirmed this opinion of mine. And, by the way, my friends and acquaintances who lived in Czechia for some time, got very much psychological help to overcome their national complexes from experiences within the Czech society ...
I don't want to offset societies against each other in terms of re-thinking national guilt. And I am not sure whether something like collective guilt exists at all. I simply stick to the idea that the campaigns against fascism, nationalism, and racism which have been undertaken in West Germany were quite engaged and not so unsuccessful. Not merit to the fact that Germans are better people - they were forced to do so, because they lost the war. Other societies didn't have this "luck" and therefore their "dark sides" often stay unreflected: For instance: did building a monument for "Bomber Harris" in the mid-nineties or the anti-German excesses in the press in connection with the European soccer championship in 1996 prove a great deal of reflection about history, responsibility, and nationalism?
Ethnos-Nation: Eine Europäische Zeitschrift
