Germany's federal election campaign isn't really a hotbed of anti-Americanism or even anti-Bush rhetoric. People are more concerned about jobs and the economic misery that has befallen the country.
But the lack of anti-Americanism is not the fault of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. He and his party SPD (Social-Democrats) are trying hard to make resistance to the Iraq war or a possible military conflict with Iran a major topic of the election campaign.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the SPD's election posters:
Translation: "He Who Wants Peace Must Stand Firm"
(I know, I know, Schroeder's democratic credentials are head and shoulder above this guy's, but there are some optical similarities in the way they both display firmness...)
Wording and picture of the poster convey the same message: It takes a strong guy - such as Schroeder - to oppose war mongers like ... well, you know who we mean (hint for search terms: cowboy, Texas, card carrying member of the religious right, oil company's little boy).
If you think there is a contradiction between the slogan "He Who Wants Peace Must Stand Firm" and Schroeder's willingness to sell weapons to China - well, you're dead wrong. You don't get the nuances of German politics, sucker. China, after all, never ever would turn to military means to solve political problems. OK, there is the occasional brutal crushing of internal opposition, the unpleasant mass executions, the decades-long suppression of Tibet or the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan... but other than that China's human rights credentials are unsurpassed by anyone Chancellor Schroeder could think of. Also, the Chinese make nice business partners...
Translation: "We Stand for the Courage (required) for Peace: What do the Others Stand For?"
Nice shot at opposition leader Angela Merkel, while at the some time questioning the moral foundation of the policies of a certain American ultra right, neoncon, non-nuanced Texan cowboy...
Translation: "For Peace: Against Blindly Following"
For the uninitiated: the SPD does not warn against blindly following Russia's policies. Putin's personality is not of any concern for the German left - after all, the chap knows a good joke when he hears one...
Rather, the SPD warns against blindly following the belligerent, dangerous course of a certain Texan cowboy politician. Which shouldn't surprise anyone watching the treatment of the U.S. president in German politics and in the German media in the last couple of years...
Oops, we forgot to translate a piece that appears in all of the above posters. "Vertrauen in Deutschland" means "Trust in Germany".
For which Gerhard Schroeder has tirelessly worked since 1998. The results are very encouraging so far. And let's not forget that along with wanting to sell EU weapons and a nuclear reactor to China, the "peace" Chancellor has already shipped German troops out to the Balkans and Afghanistan, once even calling a confidence vote to push his policy through over resistance in his own coalition.
This just in (no kidding): German chancellor Schroeder nominated for 2005 Nobel Peace Price. Well, don't panic: there are 165 other nominees, Colin Powell included. Still, awarding Schroeder with the Nobel Peace Price would be like honoring Jacques Chirac for honest diplomacy. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy...
(Hat tip Gabi)
(More coverage of the German Bundestag elections at Davids Medienkritik: 1, 2, 3)
Update: LGF finds the appropriate comparison for a Nobel Peace Prize for Schroeder...
Not that I think there will be military action against Iran (I think it's better to let the Iranians fester and overthrough the regime they hate), but Schroeder is playing a very dangerous game.
The possibility remains that military action will be necessary. The Iranian regime could conceivably hold Europe hostage. It won't be too much longer until much of Europe will be in range of Iran's missiles. Combine that with nukes and psychotic mullahs, and Europeans should really be asking themselves very carefully if military actions are never warranted.
Posted by: LouMinatti | August 23, 2005 at 06:11 PM
@LouMinatti says, "The possibility remains that military action will be necessary." The Euros want to rule out this possibility from the very beginning, which is why their diplomacy will not succeed. If you don't have a hammer, nothing looks like a nail... that's Germany's situation. The credible threat of military force and the use of other instruments of national power (economic, information warfare, etc.) give diplomacy a chance in the first place. Diplomacy alone? How many R's are there in "fat chance?"
I agree that the best chances to solve the Iran problem at the lowest cost in blood and national treasure involve an internal uprising. Chances? Hard to say. But is there something preventing the West from increasing those chances?? Or are we afraid of insulting someone's sensitivities? I wonder if a few dozen GBU-28s on key facilities would be more, or less insulting?
Posted by: Scout | August 23, 2005 at 08:14 PM
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's all try to make Schroeder the first Nobel double winner! The categories: peace... and economics!
(Hey, don't laugh. The Nobel committee, as it currently exists, would probably go for it.)
Posted by: Cousin Dave | August 23, 2005 at 08:22 PM
Brown is for our brownshirts burning buecher,
Black is for our SS uniforms,
Red is for our Osties' education,
And white is for our lies that misinform.
Posted by: PacRimJim | August 23, 2005 at 08:22 PM
Well now we have the peace/ war argument things are looking better for the SPD already. Not only are we the pope but a "recovery" has been reported in the economy (cant see it here in Berlin to be honest).... but now the final nail in the Merkel coffin:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=al.0ZJzj3z4s&refer=germany
.... so 5 more jobs have been created this month, Germany leads the world in religion, a nobel peace prize is in the news and its going to flood! Looks like the governments reelection strategy is going exactly to plan.
Posted by: Doughnut Boy Andy | August 23, 2005 at 08:44 PM
"Which shouldn't surprise anyone watching the treatment of the U.S. president in German politics and in the German media in the last couple of years..."
Well, this is really the crux of the issue, isn't it? The ironic part about this entire Friedenskanzler discussion is that we really didn't want Germans on the ground with us in Iraq on day one anyway... too much trouble for too little gain. What we really wanted from Germany in Gulf War II was: Unrestricted use of our bases in Germany and overflight rights. On the other hand, what we got was: Unrestricted use of our bases in Germany and overflight rights... oh, and a cantankerous Chancellor pounding his fist on the table and informing everyone "Das machen wir nicht mit!"
So silly. So unnecessary. So short-sighted. The already wobbly trans-Atlantic partnership was sacrificed on the alter of domestic political expediency. And enough people bought it to secure Schröder's re-election. So why not try it again? Con men often hit a victim a second time, because they already know the victim is a sucker.
If the CDU wins the election, the first thing they need to do is get the Foreign Policy keys back from the French, who define their National Identity as being against whatever the Americans support.
Posted by: Scout | August 23, 2005 at 08:59 PM
@DB Andy: The parallels are frightening, aren't they? But you know what the old Romans said... "Populus vult decipi." Schröder has just perfected the art.
Posted by: Scout | August 23, 2005 at 09:15 PM
These posters have gotton so rhetorical, I would be embarassed to be a SPD member. Is there anyone out there who REALLY thinks that Schroeder/SPD is any better in making peace? So me your resume please!
I remember watching a documentary about Germany in 1946: SED marches with posters claiming their party was the "Friedenspartie" and Social Justice. Yeah, once they crushed all other parties. But they were democratic because they had the D in DDR (sarcasm).
What a bunch of bollucks when you also consider Schroeder's duplicity and hypocricy well-exposed by Gabi in this thread. It's time for another leader in Germany. Full stop.
Posted by: James | August 23, 2005 at 10:18 PM
Hows this for a campaign slogan
Es nimmt einen flexiblen Mann, um seinen Kopf herauf seinen eigenen Esel zu haften
( I wonder how Babelfish did the translation - anyone decipher it? )
Posted by: Pogue Mahone | August 23, 2005 at 10:27 PM
It´s me!, not Schroeder! to win the Nobel Peace Prize!!!
Reasons:
Maybe, like Schroeder, I wasn´t able to prevent a war.
But!!: In contrary to him, who was envolved in the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan, I never made war to anybody. So I´m the one who is much more peaceful and qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I just need someone to present me to the Nobel Prize Committee.
Please help me!
Incoming money can be talked about.
Warning: It was me to have this idea first! Please no other candidates! Beat it Joschka!
Posted by: F. Hoffmann | August 23, 2005 at 10:56 PM
Pogue: "Hows this for a campaign slogan
"Es nimmt einen flexiblen Mann, um seinen Kopf herauf seinen eigenen Esel zu haften
"( I wonder how Babelfish did the translation - anyone decipher it? )
Babelfish sayeth: "It takes a flexible man, in order to cling its head up its own donkey"
ROFLMAO!! Ya' gotta love Babelfish :D.
Posted by: LC Mamapajamas | August 24, 2005 at 01:27 AM
Is it just me, or does Schroeder remind anyway else of The Boss from "Things to Come"?
Posted by: Pat Patterson | August 24, 2005 at 01:53 AM
Wow... it's been a while since I've seen Things to Come. You're talking about the 1936 film based on the H.G.Wells book, aren't you? Or maybe the book itself? Remind me of the character, please? :)
Posted by: LC Mamapajamas | August 24, 2005 at 01:58 AM
Wait... was the Boss the character who was the commander of the last remaining militant faction, who wanted to fight on to gain peace?
Posted by: LC Mamapajamas | August 24, 2005 at 02:04 AM
The Boss, as played by Ralph Richardson, was a short badly- coiffed martinet ready to lead his rickety biplanes against The Engineers. Not exactly an accurate representation when The Engineers appear to be the avatars of scientific socialism but the physical resemblence to Richardson and Schroeder's insistence in holding onto power regardless of the consequences seemed an apt comparison.
Posted by: Pat Patterson | August 24, 2005 at 03:01 AM
James,
we talked to so many people about Schröder. They really believe that he is a great man of peace. They believe it without any doubt. And they are proud!
Posted by: Gabi | August 24, 2005 at 08:10 AM
Yup... the Ralph Richardson character was who I was thinking of, but I don't think I explained his position well. I seem to recall that he thought that the only way to peace was total victory over the Engineers, which was what I meant to say.
Hmmm... I'll have to dig out that old tape and take a look at it again. Nope, don't have a TV any more... Maybe I'll just get a DVD copy to watch on the computer. That was one of the classics :). I'll have to get a new Metropolis again, too. I've got a lot of the old sci fi classics... but the entire collection is on tape! :O
Posted by: LC Mamapajamas | August 24, 2005 at 08:39 AM
@Pogue, @LC: Looks like Babelfish still needs a little fine tuning! Appalling, how many serious errors occurred in just one short sentence. That reminded me of signs I've seen for tourists in various locations around Europe that had been translated word for word using a dictionary, with predictable results... like that famous EAV song "It drives no parade after Egg Creek." BTW, the computer assisted English-Dutch translations are just as bad, so it's not just a German thing.
Posted by: Scout | August 24, 2005 at 09:45 AM
What's wrong with Schroeder getting the Arafat peace prize?
Posted by: Kim Hartveld | August 24, 2005 at 10:53 AM
I am not surprised. The whole peace issue (which stands also for a indirect snubbing of "Americanism") attracts a huge chunk of the SPD's base--and more than a few Germans of other political persuasions.
The issue in my mind is whether it is wise or not. "Peace at any price" is very dangerous. Quite possibly, it will lead to a greater amount of violence down the line. And I am saying this as someone who is hardly in a hurry to use military options in Iran. It's just that I think that those options should be on the table if it comes to that. Personally, diplomacy would be best, and if that doesn't work (and I don't think it will) sanctions would be next best.
Posted by: steve | August 24, 2005 at 06:03 PM
LC: thanks for the comment, as I was trying to clean up my own weak analogy. We both seem to think The Boss would have gladly destroyed everyone around him for peace and continued incumbency. Good idea about 'Metroplois', not the disco sound tracked one though.
Posted by: Pat Patterson | August 24, 2005 at 06:31 PM
@steve: "Personally, diplomacy would be best, and if that doesn't work (and I don't think it will) sanctions would be next best."
Agree that the peace issue is directed against the US. Trouble is, as I was saying, diplomacy with nothing to back it up is ineffective and doomed to failure. And as far as sanctions are concerned, let us review how successful they were in Iraq: Hardships for normal people whilst Saddam built scores of opulent palaces, kept his power base happy, and still had enough money left over to bribe significant numbers of friendly politicians in Europe, China, Russia and the UN. I for one cannot believe that sanctions against the Mullahs in Iran would end any differently. Iran would continue to build their bombs receiving surreptitious help from any number of countries who would be "shocked, shocked" to discover that Iran had not given up nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile the Mullahs would point to a conveniently arranged suffering population as proof of American aggression, unfairness, etc., the MSM would beam it world wide, and the Left and Europe would react with disgust that the US would support sanctions that cause such human suffering in Iran. Does anyone seriously have any doubts that this would be the outcome?
That's why sanctions should not even a point of discussion.
Posted by: Scout | August 24, 2005 at 07:42 PM
Test...registered earlier today...see if es klappt.
Posted by: Motorhead | August 24, 2005 at 10:19 PM
I have alternate slogans that fits Schroeder much better.
He who wants peace in our time, must stand firm.
For peace in our time: Against blindly following.
Who would have thought that Germany would produce a Chancellor who wanted to replicate Chamberlain?
Posted by: TM Lutas | August 25, 2005 at 02:33 AM
@Pat P... There's a Metropolis with a disco soundtrack???
Egad, what are they going to do next? Colorize it? Or worse, do a remake? :O I don't think anyone could beat the original, though, and I suspect Hollyweird knows it.
The tape copy that I have has a soundtrack which is close to the old rinky-tink piano music they used to play in the old silent film theaters. THAT is really cool :).
It would cost more than a new TV to replace my video collection... The Day the Earth Stood Still, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the original The Blob, every classic sci-fi that's been released on tape, as well as lots of newer ones... I may have to break down and just get a new TV and VCR! But the tapes are going to wear out eventually... DVD's last longer when they're handled properly... So this is going to require some thought to figure out the best way to go. :(
BTW, the "LC" stands for "Loyal Citizen", which is a title the members of another Typekey blog use. I was already signed in under that when David brought Typekey to this site, so it transferred over to this one :). My actual login name is "Mamapajamas". People just call me "Mama" for short :D.
Posted by: LC Mamapajamas | August 25, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Mama: Yeah, there is a 1984 version with a disco soundtrack by Giorgio Moroder. The rinky-tink version you have is the original soundtrack. I've checked and my versions of The Blob and The Day the Earth Stood Still are on Betamax, DVD is the goal. What about Them?
Posted by: Pat Patterson | August 26, 2005 at 07:58 PM
Hmmm... somehow I missed Them! Heaven forbid! I'll start out getting that one on DVD :D. I think once I get going, converting over won't be so bad. Then, even if I DO get a new TV, I can get one with a DVD installed and not have to worry about a VCR at all :).
You know, I really cried when they stopped making the Beta for the general public! The picture on those things was, to my view, even back in 1980 as good as we're currently getting on DVD! I did a copy of some old tv series that a friend of mine had on Beta, and the Beta copy had a better image than the original VHS... the thing had the ability to actually repair a rather snowy image! I've got a couple of older films on Beta, but my Betamax died, and as no one had repair parts and they were no longer for sale anyplace where I could get one at a reasonable price, I had to go VHS. I replaced the Beta tapes at that time since there were only a few, but now the collection is big enough to have to switch to DVD over a long period of time.
Posted by: LC Mamapajamas | August 27, 2005 at 02:48 AM
I look at those pictures of the steely Schroeder. Then I look at his results, and think: He sure looks the part. Shame about the perfromance....
Posted by: Don | August 27, 2005 at 06:26 PM
I remember watching a documentary about Germany in 1946: SED marches with posters claiming their party was the "Friedenspartie" and Social Justice. Yeah, once they crushed all other parties. But they were democratic because they had the D in DDR (sarcasm).
Water Damage Restoration
Posted by: Account Deleted | September 06, 2010 at 04:37 AM