Chancellor Schroeder Cites Katrina to Push Big Government Agenda

(By Ray D.)

Just this week, our colleagues at the Brussels Journal correctly noted that Hurricane Katrina is a natural disaster unimaginable in today's Europe. They wrote:

"America has been hit by a major natural disaster, the likes of which are simply unimaginable in Europe. Imagine a category 5 hurricane (the highest possible category) wrecking an area half the size of France (or Germany), thereby submerging and completely destroying a city the size of Marseille (or Cologne) including many, many other towns and villages. I wonder whether this would not lead to a temporary breakdown of law and order in France (or Germany) and whether unprecedented large scale rioting by the so-called “underpriviliged” would not follow."

Election Debate: Schroeder Implies Katrina Comparable to Recent Flooding in Germany

If there is a single word that describes the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it would have to be "unprecedented." Yet German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder apparently does not see things that way. Regrettably, Mr. Schroeder found it necessary to exploit Hurricane Katrina to push his big government agenda during Sunday night's big election debate against challenger Angela Merkel.

Here is exactly what he had to say about the Katrina catastrophe and the United States: (original German text/segment with Schroeder's remarks on Katrina, about 2 minutes into the clip/full debate footage)

"The American President himself, she (Merkel) could have said that, said that the way in which the aid efforts were proceeding was unacceptable. So it isn’t at all a criticism of him when one acknowledges that. And it is in fact so. And that, however, shows something else. That we are well advised to take a close look when it comes to the question of how much state we need and how much we don’t need. Because when I take a look at, how we, on the other side, surmounted such national catastrophes, then there are indeed noticeable differences. And I contend that this also is connected to the specific manner and way, as we say, for such situations, for people who are in urgent need, we need not a weak state but a strong state."

Noticeable differences in surmounting national catastrophes? How could Mr. Schroeder possibly imply that recent flooding in Europe (whether in recent weeks or in 2002) represented a "national disaster" comparable in the slightest degree to Hurricane Katrina? There can be, from a scientific, meteorological point of view (and from every other conceivable point of view) absolutely no comparison between Hurricane Katrina and the floods that struck Germany in 2005 and 2002.

Katrina was simply so much larger in scope than recent German floods that to speak of them in the same breath is sheer absurdity. Yet Gerhard Schroeder did exactly that in a major, nationally televised election debate watched by well over 20 million German viewers. The Chancellor first pointed to "noticeable differences" in Germany's response to recent floods versus the US response to Hurricane Katrina, clearly implying that the German response was far better and that the "difference" in response justifies a large state.

And here, again, is the central point. German authorities were not responding to a Katrina-like natural disaster in 2005 or 2002. Far from it. The storms that caused flooding in Germany, tragic as they were, were nowhere near the size, scope, impact and intensity of Katrina. Had German authorities been challenged by a truly comparable storm, an enormous category 5 hurricane that would have certainly ravaged enormous swaths of German territory, the situation would clearly not have ended nearly as well as it did during recent floods.

Roughly speaking: This is an approximate estimate of the size of Katrina compared to Germany. Ever seen a storm like this before Chancellor Schroeder? How would the German "state" have dealt with that? (Note: Germany may actually be a bit too large in our estimate)

One shudders to think what terrific havoc a massive storm on par with Katrina might wreak in Germany, a land filled with compact settlements. We can only hope that such a disaster never happens.

That said, the bottom line is that Mr. Schroeder could never have made the same ridiculous statements during the debate had a "national disaster" on the scale of a Katrina actually hit Germany during his term of office. Unfortunately, Mr. Schroeder found it necessary to exploit Katrina and the massive suffering and loss caused by the storm to further his big state agenda in an election that he is almost certain to lose. Why did he do it? Why have his Green coalition partners done the same? Well, sadly enough, a sort of sick Schadenfreude over the Gulf Coast tragedy has been the natural result of years of anti-American resentments prevalent among Germany's left-wing media and political elite. So Mr. Schroeder's comments on Katrina have gone largely uncriticized, and, if anything, have helped his election chances. Sad but true...

Schroeder: Playing the "Iraq-Peace" Card to the Bitter End

Oh...and by the way, Schroeder (again) proudly proclaimed his opposition to the Iraq war no less than three times during the debate, during his opening and closing statements, and at least once during the segment of the debate on foreign policy in which he also made his statements on Katrina. He also repeatedly emphasized his desire to position Germany as a respected power for peace in the world. (Of course one has to wonder how Mr. Schroeder's earlier push to lift the EU weapons embargo on Communist China meshes with that vision.) Nonetheless, German voters responded especially positively to that rhetoric as well, giving Schroeder a 71 to 19 advantage over Merkel in foreign policy during the debate.

On a positive note: Germany is sending some aid to disaster victims for which President Bush has already thanked Chancellor Schroeder. Of course Schroeder doesn't want things to get too friendly for fears it might hurt his election chances. Additionally, Bush obviously wasn't aware of Schroeder's debate comments or simply didn't care as he is currently more than busy attempting to manage a disaster recovery.

Update: In considering the opinions of Schroeder and others like him on Katrina, it is important to keep in mind Europe's disastrous handling of the 2003 heatwave in which well over 10,000 died. Read more on that here...

Endnote: Schroeder's comments on Katrina came about 1 hour, 8 minutes into the debate if you choose to watch it on your computer using the link we provided of the "full debate footage". You can skip ahead to that part of the debate by clicking on the foreign policy tab or "Die Außenpolitik" on the left-hand side. The comments are about two minutes into the foreign policy segment. Emphasis ours throughout this post.

Comments

[Mathesar]

Eines noch zum Thema: "Was würden die Deutschen tun, wenn..."

Einige kleine Unterschiede gibt es generell schon:

1. Das deutsche Kommunikationsnetz ist weitestgehend unempfindlich gegen äußere Einflüsse. Alle Leitungen sind unterirdisch verlegt (nicht auf hochmodernen Holzmasten) und in einem "verteilten Stern" aufgebaut. Die Leitungen sind hardwaremäßig priorisiert, d. h. Ärzte, Polizei, Feuerwehr und Rettungsdienste haben die höchste Priorität und sind auch dann noch erreichbar, wenn das Netz insgesamt stark überlastet wird. Alle Unterverteiler in den Stadtteilen sind flutsicher, vandalismusgeschützt und Ssurmsicher in fensterlosen Bunkern untergebracht. Batterien und automatische Stromaggregate halten die energetisch selbständigen Knoten am laufen.

2. Auch andere Versorgungseinrichtungen wie Gas, Strom usw. sind innerhalb der Orte größtenteils unterirdisch verlegt.

3. Es existiert in jedem Bereich festgelegte Notfall- und Katastrophenpläne und definierte Zuständigkeiten. In jedem Ort gibt es einen Katastrophenleiter sowie leitende Notärzte, welche für die Umsetzung in den Einheiten zuständig sind. Besonders berücksichtigt werden alle Einrichtungen, in denen sich die Einwohner evtl. nicht selbst helfen können (Krankenhäuser, Altenheime).

4. Dämme und Schutzeinrichtungen entsprechen einem Sicherheitsniveau, daß 5 mal höher ist, als z. B. die Dämme in New Orleans. Dort waren die Anforderungen 1x in 205 Jahren, in Deutschland 1x in 1200 Jahren. Derzeit wird darüber nachgedacht ob die Anforderung weiter erhöht wird.

5. Durch die stabilere Bauweise deutscher Häuser gäbe es erheblich weniger Schäden. Pappgedeckte Wohnhäuser gibt es hier nicht mehr.

6. Deutsche würden sich gegen eine Evakuierung nicht mit Waffengewalt wehren und die Retter nicht mit dem Gewehr im Anschlag in die Häuser gehen.

7. Tonnen von Plastikwasserflaschen in eine Notastandsgebiet zu transferrieren und damit Transportkapazität zu binden, ist der helle Wahnsinn. Wasseraufbereitungsanlagen mit hoher Kapazität sind die bessere Wahl....sofern man welche hat.

Zu guter letzt: Wirklich schockierend war die Geschichte mit dem Altenheim in NO. Die 30 Insassen sind am Freitag! ertrunken....

[americanbychoice]

@ Mathesar

Das deutsche Kommunikationsnetz ist weitestgehend unempfindlich gegen äußere Einflüsse. Alle Leitungen sind unterirdisch verlegt.

Ich wohne in Florida and the decision to have underground utilities or above ground are up to the individual communities. Above ground is cheaper and also cheaper to repair. You see both. Also, rmember the very high Water level. We can't have Keller in our houses.

2. Auch andere Versorgungseinrichtungen wie Gas, Strom usw. sind innerhalb der Orte größtenteils unterirdisch verlegt.
Hier auch, es gelten die gleichen mass nahmen wie bei #1, ausser Gas.

3.Es existiert in jedem Bereich festgelegte Notfall- und Katastrophenpläne und definierte Zuständigkeiten. In jedem Ort gibt es einen Katastrophenleiter sowie leitende Notärzte, welche für die Umsetzung in den Einheiten zuständig sind. Besonders berücksichtigt werden alle Einrichtungen, in denen sich die Einwohner evtl. nicht selbst helfen können (Krankenhäuser, Altenheime
Hier gibt es auch keine unterschiede.

4.Dämme und Schutzeinrichtungen entsprechen einem Sicherheitsniveau, daß 5 mal höher ist, als z. B. die Dämme in New Orleans. Dort waren die Anforderungen 1x in 205 Jahren, in Deutschland 1x in 1200 Jahren. Derzeit wird darüber nachgedacht ob die Anforderung weiter erhöht wird.

Antwort: Ich glaube kaum, dass es jemals einen solchen fall in "D" geben wird. 300KPH wird es wahrscheinlich nie geben. Es ist nicht nur die windstaerke, sondern mit welcher wucht es Baeume Wasser und andere sachen herumschleudert. Sogar Beto Bruecken sind eingestuerzt. Einmal in 1200 Jahren ist nicht so stark als einmal in 205 Jahren an der Golf kueste.

5. Durch die stabilere Bauweise deutscher Häuser gäbe es erheblich weniger Schäden. Pappgedeckte Wohnhäuser gibt es hier nicht mehr.
Stabilere Bauweise? Das ist bloedsinn. Mein Haus ist aus Stein gebaut, das dach hat eine Garantie von 30 Jahren und die Code sagt dass mein dach eine windstaerke von 150 meilen aushalten muss. Da waeren die daecher in "D" schon laengst weggefegt. Uebrigens kann man die Deutschen Daecher hier auch haben, je nach geschmack.usw. usw.

Not everything that glistens in Germany is Gold.

[Leserin]

Mathesar,

You misread one critical phrase in point #7: ..."live in America for a while..." To "live" somewhere is quite different than being a tourist, which you so aptly described. To "live" in America is to get an apartment or a house, work or go to school, make a few friends. Being a tourist in America is as disconnected from real life as being a tourist in Croatia and spending two weeks at a nudist camp.

I would be the last person to defend the air conditioning, ice machines, or fat people in Florida. Being a tourist can be disconcerting. May I suggest that the next time you travel, in any country, simply drop by a grocery store and purchase a head of fresh lettuce, a few specialty pickles and a bottle of water - mit Gas. You'll feel better immediately!

[joe]

And just what is wrong with air conditioning and ice machines.

Just because you have neither nor might feel you do need these does not make them wrong.

But then I guess that does not fit the definition of social justice now does it.

I happen to have both and they work just fine. In fact my German house guests just left after 3 weeks of being here and they gave both a real work out. I thought I would freeze my ass off they wanted the air to be down so low.

[joe]

Of course, I might equally ask...........why in the hell do germans have heaters?????

Want to defend that???

[Leserin]

Mathesar,

I agree with you that the infrastructure in Germany is, in general, stronger and more resilient than here in the U.S. Fortunately for you, Germany does not have earthquakes, volcanoes, tornados or hurricanes, and so your emergency management, such as it is, is tested only by the occasional flood. It is also fairly unlikely that Germany will, at least for a while, suffer a major terrorist attack, as Germany's policy of non-engagement in international affairs keeps you below the radar.

So I'll just concede the point: if a large natural disaster were to ever hit Germany - which it never will - Germany would, of course, do a much better job at managing it. Let's now explore the two remaining scenarios: a nuclear power plant dysfunction, and a killer heat wave. Admittedly, I'm reaching here, because I'm sure that all of those Kernkraftwerke are infallible, and "heat wave" is a relative term, as evidenced by your complaints about the unpleasant weather in Florida (just a geography tip - many, many people in the world live in hotter climates than Germany). What are the plans for evacuating the elderly and disabled people? If you scroll up to my previous post, you will see that that Germany's track record on heat waves is a bit worrisome.

I would appreciate it if you or anyone else would post some links regarding the evacuation plans for major German cities, and also the plans to identify and remove vulnerable people to cooler places in the case of a heat wave. Thank you.

Note from David: Actually - there was a heatwave in Germany in 2003. Up to this day I wasn't able to get any statistics about the number of deaths attributed to this national catastrophe. France's figures during the same heat wave are estimated to be in the 10 000 to 15 000 range. No such figures are available for Germany, at least to my knowledge. Could some of our German friends come up with an estimate from a trusted source?

Well - if there are no stats, there probably were no deaths, because, you know, Germany has such a superior state run health system. Also, as a rule, they don't use air conditioning in German hospitals, so people don't get used to unnecessary luxury...

[Leserin]

Joe,

Mathesar is complaining that the air conditioning, ice machines, sprinkler systems, elevators, bathrooms and salad selctions on his vacation in Key West were not up to par. The implication, of course, is that Americans are complete incompetents. Being neither a repairman nor a particularly skillful cook, I had to pass on that one.

[americanbychoice]

@ Mathesar
The roofs of German Buildings would not pass the code or Inspection in Florida.
Am Sonntag gesund gebetet? Ridiculous

Well, I must say that prayer is not a very strong force in Germany any more. Those who believe are being ridiculed.
Of course after the next Generation, prayer will be mandated 5 times a day under penalty of death, only to a different God and a different religion.
That's what you get for becoming too lazy to breed and thus destroying your country slowly but surely?

[Leserin]

David,

If you scroll up a bit in the comments, you will find an AP report I posted about the 2003 heat wave.

Note from David: My fault. Didn't read all the comments.
Thanks for the information.

[joe]

Well I guess if you always want to stay at the most cheapest of places you have to expect this.

I for one have never had that problem as I normally know better.

[Hausser]

Just because the Hurricane cloud mass is big does not mean that the whole thing contains 140 MPH winds. The US has failed in New Orleans. Bush could care less. The Germans are CORRECT