The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Whither the American Empire?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Having just seen the latest exercise in neocon academic grandstanding, a widely publicized letter to “German colleagues” by defenders of the US war against terror, I am driven ineluctably to the following observation. Although the reasoning offered by the Red-Green coalition government in Germany for not contributing to a US attack on Iraq is both tortured and masochistic (what else should one expect from a pc Teutonic regime?), the conclusion to which it comes is thoroughly defensible. Note the conservative German weekly for which I write, Junge Freiheit, embraces the same conclusion, albeit for correct reasons, namely it is not in the interest of European nations to join in American imperialist aggression against a regionalist Middle Eastern power, particularly one that does not pose a credible threat to either the US or Germany. If either country objects to Muslim terrorists, it does have the option, although a politically incorrect one, of suspending or restricting immigration.

Equally to the point, and contrary to a flat assertion made by the Fox Network loudmouth Bill O’ Reilly (New York Post, August 8, 2002) Germans do not “owe” the American government to the point of being obligated to put themselves at risk in a neocon-fomented war against Iraq. O’Reilly repeats the fiction that the US “rebuilt” Germany after lots of devastation just happened to occur there. In fact the Germans rebuilt their own country, thanks to patriotic classical liberals like Ludwig Erhard, despite the fact the US, like the other occupying powers, set out to treat postwar Germany vindictively. Erhard worked around the American administrators, who enforced price-and-wage controls and in some cases deliberately injured Germany’s postwar recovery attempts, to create something like a free-market economy. He succeeded in doing so because of American inattention and because Erhard enjoyed deserved prestige as an anti-Nazi, although one who was equally a friend of freedom.

As for why Germany needed rebuilding, the U.S. and Britain did play critical roles here, by turning the country into a junkyard. They engaged in the later stages of the war in relentless saturation bombing of civilian populations, well beyond arguable military targets. As a result, large parts of almost all major German cities were destroyed, while Dresden, an overcrowded refugee and Red Cross center by the end of the war, almost disappeared from the map because of British bombing. Making this point is not to excuse Nazi brutality or Nazi conquests. It is simply to underline the obvious truth, that the relation of the Western “democracies” to Germany has not been a predominantly benevolent one, from at least the starvation blockade and the Treaty of Versailles onward. And the fact that we got nice to the Germans (when we needed them) during the Cold War does not negate the mutually unkind relations that preceded that turn.

Ironically, the sense that Germany is a moral pariah, which now fuels German pacifism, was also a gift of the American presence in Central Europe. Postwar American “re-educators” in Germany, with the assistance of the occupation government, undertook to help Germans “overcome the past,” by filling their heads with negative thoughts about their entire national history. Nazism and Auschwitz were presented as the necessary culmination of a wicked collective past, which abounded in militarism and lacked the democratic spirit. If the fruits of this Umerziehung can now be seen in Chancellor Schroeder’s statements about how a repentant Germany is committed to abstinence from military force and to justice for the Third World, one must conclude that he has learned well from his American re-educators and their German assistants.

Attacking him, as neocons have begun to do, as an enemy of global democracy, is profoundly dishonest. Schroeder and his leftist pals are following the Teutonophobic script that American and German journalists, including neocon ones, expected his contrite (but never quite contrite enough) country to follow, until now. Schroeder wishes to keep Germans away from military operations, given their collective predisposition for mass murder, the way one tries to prevent alcoholics from smelling booze. Old habits can come back, with catastrophic results. Little did Schroeder know that by turning his back on the putative German past, he would soon be accused of doing exactly the opposite, showing the habitual German contempt for “democracy,” as defined in the offices of the Weekly Standardand National Review.

Observing the neocon gasbags on Fox News, led by the apparently amiable Morton Kondracke, push American youth into what in all likelihood will be a bloody war, I am drawn back to a commentary recently published by John Laughland in The European Journal and written by London Daily Mirror journalist John Pilger. Contrary to the questionable assertion that the US is a stable conservative world power, Pilger explains in his book The New Rulers of the World that there is something frenetic and utterly destabilizing about American imperialism: “The Americans, in other words, do not mind whether their son-of-a-bitch is on the left or right, so long as he does what he is told. They are also quite capable of dropping an ally, even a long-standing one, when they feel like it. To describe present U.S. policy as right-wing is therefore a mistake, especially when the U.S. has devoted the last 10 years to bringing Communists back to power in Eastern Europe.”


Pilger and Laughland, a favorite Australian and Englishman of mine, have given the reasons why no self-respecting European patriot would want anything to do with the American empire. As an American, however, I find the problem to be even worse. We are running after neocon journalists, who try to compensate for the facts that they are physically puny and don’t personally bear the hardships of their Middle-Eastern commitments, by pushing the US into bloodbaths. Even scarier, these militarists of the pen are getting away with this exercise in psychological compensation — and may be propelling the US into a war that we should not be fighting. At the very least, the Germans and the other Europeans would do well to stay out of it.

Paul Gottfried [send him mail] is professor of history at Elizabethtown College and author, most recently, of the highly recommended After Liberalism.

(Republished from LewRockwell by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Germany, Iraq 
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS