Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pavlos Roufos's avatar

Dear Branko,

Since the first time we ever met was in Berlin, I take the liberty of making two comments on your nice post.

You write that Weimar’s inflation destroyed its credibility. Though the hyperinflation of 1923 was indeed a shocking and reckoning moment for the young Republic, its taming after 1923 produced years of relative stability leading, in fact, to the actual “golden years” of the Weimar Republic. It was not until the disastrous austerity policies of Chancellor Brüning in 1930 - which were disinflationary in nature and which, combined with the consequences of the 1929 crash, led to 6 million unemployed in one year- that the downfall of Weimar Republic started. Not coincidentally, it was after 1930 that the Nazis started gaining traction after years in the margins.

The notion that hyperinflation was the most significant trauma and “lesson” of Weimar is a retrospective view, promoted consistently by conservative critics of Weimar (many of whom supported Brüning's policies and who did not hesitate to support, even initially, Hitler as a solution against instability). Postwar popular accounts, influenced by such a perspective, even went as far as conflating hyperinflation with Hitler, thereby producing a remarkable inversion: that it was not those who had supported Hitler that were to blame for Nazi ascendance but those who had caused hyperinflation (i.e., the SPD/Zentrum government). In short, the victims of Nazis were more responsible than its supporters.

The hyperinflation trauma-myth was also used consistently by postwar monetary authorities (from the BdL to the Bundesbank) in order to support their goal of central bank independence (curiously ignoring the fact that in 1923 the Reichsbank was, in fact, already independent due to the Autonomy Law of 1922). [On this exact topic, I could not recommend enough Simon Mee’s 2019 Central Bank Independence and the Legacy of the German Past]

A similarly peculiar inversion is now visible in relation to the war in Gaza. While the official line of unconditional support for Israel is meant to emanate from Holocaust guilt, one would be amiss not to notice an instrumentalisation of sorts: while anti-semitic incidents are visible (I live in Neukölln where there have been such cases), the definition of anti-semitism seems to have departed from its usual meaning and to have been transformed into any criticism of the Israeli state and, inversely, any show of support for Palestinians. That such a re-interpretation has permeated the atmosphere here is visible in the various “slip of the tongue” (or maybe, Freudian slips?) of journalists, politicians and other official figures who use the terms Palestinian or Hamas interchangeably, with appalling consequences: recently a newspaper publicly asked for the removal of citizenship from a teenage girl for posting something in favour of Palestine (not Hamas!) on social media. While there is little doubt that there are expressions of support (or reluctance to condemn) Hamas, it is also clear that equating support for Palestine or the civilians of Gaza with support for Hamas consists of, among other things, an authoritarian reflex. The double standards were made clear in Habeck’s famous video where “Arabs” (in general) are asked to prove they are not anti-semitic, at the same time as official figures with clear anti-semitic biographies (let alone the far right itself) are given a free hand. The further fact that government officials were happy to reproduce and promote a video where a far-right English "journalist" compared Hamas to Nazis … only to find Nazis more “civilised”, indicates that there is much more going on here than Holocaust guilt. Using the Holocaust trauma to justify defending Israel is one thing but using it as a way to attack Arabs in Germany (many of whom are German citizens) or to whitewash Nazis is quite another.

Combining those things with the veritable rise of the AfD (I am not as convinced as you that they will not be part of a coalition in the next election) does indeed make the streets of Berlin quite dark but I am not sure it's because of energy saving.

Expand full comment
Alexander Kurz's avatar

"inflation and dearness of energy, economic stagnation (near zero growth), the rise of the extreme right, political paralysis, loss of exports to China, decline of German car technology, high wealth inequality, imperfect assimilation of foreign-born population, inefficiency of German railways, dark streets in Berlin (saving of energy), full political dependence on the US"

this doesn't even include climate change, biodiversity loss, the rise of AI, ... all of which, I believe, are considered to have no positive impact on the German economy

wrt the dependence on the US: this looks even darker if one thinks of the sabotage of the Nordstream Pipeline as a US attack on Germany and Europe

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts