Tag Archives: Germany
Integration and Culture: What are the Next Steps?
The article “Is multi-kulti dead?” which focuses on integration of immigrants in Europe—specifically Germany—sparked my reflections on meanings of nationalism and culture. In this piece from The Economist, Germany is initially portrayed as an unaccepting, nationalist state that is unwilling to integrate foreigners into the German state. With the influx of immigrants and new religions, many Germans desire “’sharply restricting’ Muslim religious practice…[and] a third think the country is overrun with foreigners and a tenth say they want a strong Fuhrer.” ((“Is Multi-kulti Dead?” The Economist. 2010)) Germany has long been a non-pluralistic, nationalist state. Lately, though, it has been moving away from such, but people such as Chancellor Angela Merkel have argued that recent attempts of integration and multiculturalism have “failed, absolutely failed.” ((Ibid)) Merkel and other government officials such as President Christian Wulff have sought to change this; the government is constructing a law “that would make it easier for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants in Germany with professional qualifications to have them recognised so that they can do something more rewarding than cleaning houses.” ((Ibid)) It seems that Germany, despite its rigid history, is moving in the right direction.
The article argues that despite this governmental reform towards integration, not everyone in Germany is on the same page. German citizens have not yet fully embraced new religions and cultures, shedding light on the stiff nationalism and purity that has often isolated Germany and its citizens from the rest of the world throughout history. The author asks many questions at the end of the piece, all of which focus on the potential future for German multiculturalism and what measures Germany needs to take to further address the issue. One of those questions is “Will Muslims be forced to choose between practising their religion and adopting a German identity?” ((Ibid))
The world is becoming more diverse as we know it. How dedicated are we to integrating countries that have historically been predominantly non-pluralistic? How will we go about successfully and peacefully integrating other cultures? Are countries such as the United States and Germany avoiding the seemingly daunting task of integration; are we afraid of it? Or are we not addressing the issue in the right way? I think all of these questions are very important to think about as we move forward in society.
Forgive and Forget
In 1920, after the first World War, John M. Keynes wrote “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” on his dissatisfaction with the Treaty of Versailles and calls out to those who are drafting the treaty to think of the potential economic consequences it would have on Germany and Europe as a whole. Keynes was an established economist in England and most notably would revolutionize the ideas seen in macroeconomics. Throughout the chapter Keynes writes in a style of urgency and fear as he sees the stability of Europe at risk.
Right from the beginning of the chapter, Keynes believes the treaty does not promote the idea of ‘good neighbors’ for the defeated states. He believes the arrangement reached in Paris was not based on the future of economics in Europe, but rather on political folly ((Keynes, Economic Consequences of Peace)) . After such a dramatic and long war, it seems that the victorious states wanted to extensively punish those who stood against them in the so called ‘heat of the moment’, without taking account of its long-term effects. Keynes goes on to express how European countries have become economically interdependent on each other and how this treaty would disrupt each country’s economy ((Keynes, Economic Consequences of Peace)) . With declining trade and commerce comes a lower standard of living, or even the possibility of starvation. On the topic of starvation, Keynes makes the statement, ” Men will not always die quietly”, inferring that revolution and instability could develop in certain countries.
Keynes is very concerned with how the treaty will specifically effect Germany, stating that those who sign this treaty will be responsible for the death of millions of Germans. The treaty would cause Germany to lose all of its colonies, merchant fleet and foreign investments ((Keynes, Economic Consequences of Peace)) . In basic economic terms, the demand of the German people will become greater than what can be supplied according to Keynes. He predicts that Germany will regress in its industrial development, and as a result negatively impact the rest of Europe.
I find this reading to be related to the discussion we had in class about the effects of propaganda. It seems that the allied powers could not forgive the countries they had defeated and still viewed them as barbarians or inhuman.
Were the conditions in the Treaty of Versailles towards Germany too harsh after WWI? Do wars need propaganda?
Keynes and The Treaty of Versaille
John Maynard Keynes was an economist in Great Britain during World War I. Keynes also served as a representative of the Treasury of Great Britain and was an outspoken member at Versailles. Since Keynes was an economist he saw the consequences that the sanctions on Germany would do not only to their economy but what it would do to the rest of the world economy. He saw that since Germany would have to pay large sums of money they would not be able to provide for their people and Germany was already facing food shortages because of the Allied blockade. The food shortages and debt sanctions would not allow Germany to import goods, most of Germany’s economy is industrial, and cause the other surrounding economies to suffer the consequences of peace. Keynes stated that instituting this treaty, which would not only force Germany to take drastic measures but would result in the endangering of millions of German people. We can look at Keynes’ argument and know it is strong because of our hindsight that tells us what kind of state Germany becomes in the future.
Spengler’s Therapy for the German People
Oswald Spengler wrote The Decline of the West following World War One, after his nation lost and was made weak. Spengler was a German philosopher and historian as well as an avid advocate for German hegemony. In his post-war writings he postulated that the European hold in world politics would inevitably come to an end. ((Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1922)) To prove his point he showed a trend in history where empires would reign for decades, even centuries, but would eventually collapse in on themselves. ((Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1922)) He was correct in that European hegemony was coming to an end to make way for the hegemonic rule of the United States; however, it’s arguable whether or not it was his sense of nationalism that drove him to this conclusion or his unbiased observations of history.
Germany was at the center of the losing side of World War One. The loss was decimating to the nation, as seen in the Treaty of Versailles, the document that ended the war in 1919. Every single article in the treaty weakens Germany, making them pay reparations, give up land, demobilize, and essentially fall under the power of the Allied Forces. ((The Treaty of Versailles, 1919)) As nationalist country that had just risen to extreme power to lose so greatly and be forced to submission of their neighbors was humiliating. Spengler was most likely engaging the German people in a form of therapeutic writing, reassuring them that the loss didn’t matter because Europe was on the decline anyways.
If Germany had won the war and had become the main power in Europe, would Spengler still have written that the hegemonic status of Europe as a whole was in decline? Or would he have reassured the German people that their status was as a prominent world leader, rather than the strongest nation of many in decline?
A Call for Nationalism
During the Enlightenment period there was a surge of nationalism in regions where there had been little unity before. Johann Gottfried von Herder, a German philosopher, presents nationalism as a people who, as well as being bound together geographically, are culturally, linguistically, and historically linked ((Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind)). In 1784, when Gottfried Von Herder published his work interpreting nationalism, Germany as we know it today was made up of many different small territories, the most prominent of these being Prussia. It’s possible then that this segmented area was the reason Gottfried von Herder was advocating so strongly for nationalism. It’s difficult to feel pride in your nation if you’re not entirely sure of what nation you’re a part of. France was another inspiration for the sudden support for nationalism. Gottfried von Herder specifically mentions in his writings that France was able to achieve a united state by forcing all of its citizens to speak French, which in turn connected the people ((Materials for the philosophy of the History of Mankind)). He infers that a common language is key to establishing a culture and a nation.
Gottfried von Herder was not born into wealth; he was raised by poor parents and had the good fortune of being able to study under famous philosophers such as Immanuel Kant ((Encyclopedia Britannica)). Seeing how he started as a peasant, I have to wonder if Gottfried von Herder saw the rise of the Third Estate in France and drew the connection between this revolution and a surge of nationalism in France. Did Gottfried von Herder’s economic status lead him to endorse nationalism so heavily?
Overall, Gottfried von Herder was one of many philosophers during the Enlightenment period who advocated for nationalism in a state. His country, education, and economic status were all influences to him as well as potential reasons that he believed so wholeheartedly in nationalism.
Flocking to Success – Immigration
For me, this essay brings up an enduring question throughout much of history: “What to do with immigrants or newcomers?” It also leads to the follow up question: “Who should be doing these actions?” The fact is that when a country starts becoming successful, like Germany in the late twentieth century and like the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, people will flock to that nation. For them, it represents the possibility of opportunity or escape from a potentially bad homeland (refugee). The same thing will happen domestically: if a city starts to boom, and create more job opportunity, people will generally flock to that city. According to this article, Germany is having to face these questions now. As the nation furthers itself as an economic powerhouse, more will want to join in on the bandwagon. In some cases, a newly booming economy needs this flocking in order to keep the momentum going. Germany is not too far from Eastern Europe, and therefore, a large percentage of mixed ethnic populations. For a nation with such a troubled racial past, it can be challenging for them to determine what to do. In the not too distant future, leaders in Germany will have to decide whether they want to assimilate immigrants, allow immigrants to stay but retain their culture, or simply disallow immigration into Germany. The difficult thing is, all answers to the question have their merits; it’s a moral dilemma.
It was a problem for nineteenth-century U.S., and now it is a problem for Germany. Are there any other parts in history that may experience this problem? Perhaps Irish immigration into Britain? Or perhaps North African immigration into Spain?
How does one survive in Auschwitz?
In Survival in Auschwitz, the author Primo Levi captures the reader into the harsh reality of life in the infamous Nazi concentration and extermination camp. Primo Levi is a young Jewish-Italian man who, in 1943 at the age of 24, was captured by the Nazi fascists while hiding in the woods and stripped of everything that belonged to him including his name.
Auschwitz is probably the most well known out of all the Nazi concentration camps during World War II. Primo Levi spends almost an entire year, what to him seemed like an eternity, being starved, badly beaten and worked until he could no longer breathe. The camp presented extremely unsanitary conditions and prisoners were fed little to nothing, as they were given soup with scraps of potato and cabbage. During this time, Primo struggled to maintain a sense of humanity and never saw an end to his suffering. After spending almost an entire year in these devastating conditions the Nazi’s abandoned these camps with the threat of the invading Soviet Union and after surviving on their own they were eventually rescued.
To answer the topic question, “How does one survive Auschwitz?”, Primo presents severals cases and points. For one to survive Auschwitz you must be extremely lucky, know German, never give up hope, maintain good health as best you can and most importantly have compassion. Compassion is something Primo learns when he meets the ever so kind Lorenzo, who isn’t a prisoner but yet a civilian worker, who constantly provides food secretly to Primo and talks with him. Primo says, “I believe that it was really due to Lorenzo that I am alive today; and not so much for his material aid, as for his having constantly reminded me of his presence, by his natural and plain manner of being good, that there still existed a just world outside of our own, something and someone still pure and whole, not corrupt, not savage, not extraneous to hatred and terror; something difficult to define, a remote possibility of good, but for which it was worth surviving.” (121) Compassion in Auschwitz means having a community of people who look out for each other and share their resources to maximize the entire groups chances of survival. This sense of community helped maintain sanity for Primo and through his inspiration that he found from Lorenzo that he was able to survive Auschwitz.
Hitler and Nazism
Hitler was an Austrian born, German politician (Wikipedia). He was alive from 1889-1945. He was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany from 1934-1945. Hitler despised the idea of Capitalism or any other form of leadership besides Nationalism. He was a dictator in World War II and the cause of the Holocaust.
Throughout the 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program and Adolf Hitler’s speech of April 12, 1921 hatred toward the Jews drastically increases. Number four of the 25 points states that “ no Jew can be a member of the race”. In Hitler’s speech he blames the Jews for the debt in which all of Germany has recently come into. He states that the Jews have money while everyone else is suffering. He says that the Jews do not work for what they earn and hold positions that others deserve. This convinces the poor in the society as well as the working class to unite against the Jews. This was the start to Nazism. Hitler was not only against democracy but he was also against socialism and capitalism. He claimed that Capitalism was formed and run by the Jews in Russia, he said that this would be their downfall.
Hitler creates 25 points in 1920 for what he wishes people to follow. In Hitler’s first two points, he asks for equality with other nations, yet he does not know what equality is himself. In the next point, he asks for the other nations to rid the treaty of Versailles and to relive Germany from its many debts. He demands for more territory for their “ surplus population”. He also states the definition of the German race, excluding any Jews. Hitler states that only citizens may hold jobs or positions in society. Further immigration of any sort is to be prevented and all immigrants residing in Germany are to leave. He says that all citizens must have equal rights and obligations. All wages must be earned by labor or work. While there are many other points listed in Hitler’s wishes of the German Reich, all of them either demoralize Jews or exclude them from society.
The Economic Consequences of Peace
The Economic Consequences of Peace addresses the effects of the Versailles treaty on the already fragile German system. It described provisions of the Versailles treaty and then illustrates the tragic effects. Keynes explained how before the war the population was living “without much margin of surplus” (Keynes), and in the aftermath people had to restore this system before starvation became a huge issue. Keynes also issued the warning that “men will not always die quietly”, directing this at politicians and men in power and saying that the negative temperaments brought on by starvation/desperation could be fuel for future issues. Another issue with the treaty was that it limited Germany’s ability to import raw materials, which in turn would cause the industries to collapse. If the industry of Germany were to collapse, it would be another factor in mass starvation and discontent in the population. Essentially Keynes issued a warning to not be rash in the direct aftermath of WWI, saying “some of the catastrophes of past history….have been due to the reactions following [war]”. If a population were to grow beyond what it is able provide food for while the economy is still in a fragile state, there is a higher likelihood of it causing future conflicts. Keynes showed a great understanding of predicting the economic side of the German situation, and approached it from this view instead of becoming personally invested in the political aspects of the war.