Be optimistic about Merz, but the spectre of the 1930s remains
When Germany surrendered unconditionally in 1945, almost everyone assumed that the Nazis would be a threat for many years to come. Even in 1949, the first Secretary General of Nato, Lord Ismay, summed up its purpose as 'to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'.
But the Nazi revival never happened. For 75 years the Federal Republic was conspicuous as Europe's most successful economy and an exemplary civil society, giving the lie to Spenglerian prophecies of doom.
Until now, that is. Sunday's election saw the first serious threat to German democracy emerge since the defeat of the Third Reich.
That threat goes by the name of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Despite the fact that it echoes Putin's propaganda and is classified as an extremist party by the German equivalent of MI5, the AfD has just become the official opposition, with 10.3 million votes, more than a fifth of the electorate. In the new Bundestag, 152 seats out of 630 will be AfD: not quite enough to take over parliamentary committees, but enough to sabotage the system.
Since the invasion of Ukraine three years ago, the AfD have been the dominant party in the former East Germany, but now they are the most popular choice for younger voters right across the country. For now, the oldies have saved German democracy. Still: if this trend continues, the AfD could be the largest party by the next election in 2029.
This is a party that tells Germans they have been enslaved since 1945 by a 'guilt cult' imposed by the Allies. They quibble over how many of the SS should be seen as war criminals, or whether the Holocaust was just a 'speck of birdshit' on their nation's otherwise spotless history. The AfD is so openly pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian and authoritarian that even Marine Le Pen and Giorgia Meloni will have nothing to do with them. The AfD's leader Alice Weidel is not just a Leni Riefenstahl fantasy version of Nigel Farage.
To anyone who has followed the outer fringes of German politics, this is all familiar. Surely, though, the AfD is a legitimate party? In deepest Thuringia, its mob-orator Björn Höcke is unrepentant, despite prosecutions for using banned Hitlerian slogans. But at national level Alice Weidel disdains dog whistles and gestures of dubious legality: no Sieg Heils or swastikas for her.
But sticking to the letter of the law may be just a tactic. Nearly a century ago, though, the original Nazis made their breakthrough in 1930 with an election campaign that secured 107 seats. Hitler then appeared as a witness in a Leipzig court, where three army officers were accused of disobeying orders by fraternising with the Nazis, to declare that he and his party stood 'hard as granite' on the foundation of legality. The judges agreed and an exuberant Joseph Goebbels told one of the defendants: 'What can they do to us now? Now we're strictly legit – and that's it.'
Now, as in the 1930s, the AfD's reassurances about the law are hollow. Once in power, these Putinversteher (Putin apologists) would follow their Tsar. Friedrich Merz, the new Chancellor, certainly doesn't trust them an inch. Quite rightly, he prefers to form a coalition with the Social Democrats, despite them having experienced the worst defeat in their history.
The latter must waste no time in replacing Olaf Scholz, the most terrible Chancellor in postwar German history, with Boris Pistorius, the highly capable defence minister. It seems likely that Pistorius will become vice chancellor in the new coalition, perhaps charged with rebuilding the military and the arms industry.
At his press conference yesterday, Merz said that for Europe, it is 'five minutes to midnight'. He understands that the transatlantic relationship is now on a knife-edge. Unlike some of his predecessors at home and allies abroad, though, this staunch Atlanticist loathes Putin.
Though the reckless wooing of Alice Weidel by vice president Vance and Elon Musk had little impact, Merz has no choice but to take their meddling seriously. Yesterday he told the press that Ms Weidel had no policies on the economy or migration, only false or exaggerated criticisms. But he also conceded that the established parties are in the last chance saloon. His own Christian Democrat Union failed to win a single seat in the former Communist East. The Social Democrats, whose working-class vote has just been cannibalised by the AfD, were a key part of the German democratic system, he said. 'I have no interest in seeing [them] destroyed.'
Yet Merz now has a chance to restore the kind of resolute, reasonable and responsible leadership that made the Federal Republic of the postwar era so much admired. Helmut Schmidt (1974-82) and Helmut Kohl (1982-98) were bitter rivals, but seen from London, Washington or Moscow, it hardly mattered that one was centre-Left, the other centre-Right. Both Chancellors worked with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War and bring down the Iron Curtain.
Having covered Germany during part of that period for this newspaper and played a walk-on part in the fall of the Berlin Wall, I am confident that Merz and Pistorius are cut from the same cloth as Kohl and Schmidt. But Alice Weidel and the other AfD demagogues, like their far-Left counterparts Sahra Wagenknecht and Heidi Reichinnek, are unfit to hold high office.
The crisis that the West faces today is at least as serious as that of 1989. Then we faced Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping; now we face Putin and Xi Jinping. Germany, at least, has chosen leaders of real calibre, not charlatans who would betray Western civilisation to its enemies.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What exactly does Donald Trump think the federal government is supposed to do?
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. There are some major contradictions in President Donald Trump's view of what government should do to help and protect Americans as expressed this week. He promised to 'wean' the country off federal disaster relief and wind down FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Cleaning up after hurricanes, wildfires and earthquakes should be a state function, he said. 'A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can't handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor,' Trump told reporters on Tuesday. Trump seized control of California's National Guard from Gov. Gavin Newsom, federalizing troops and putting them on the streets of Los Angeles over the objections of local and state leaders. He has threatened to send troops to other cities throughout the country. Critics, including Newsom, accused Trump of an illegal authoritarian overreach. California has sued the administration to end the callup of Marines and National Guard. Trump's actions had the effect of inciting more unrest instead of quieting it, according to the state's leaders. 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president,' Newsom said on social media. He is primed to roll back California's looming ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, at least according to Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California Republican. Expect lawsuits. California's Environmental Protection agency has enacted its own climate change policy because the federal government, which has switched from Democrats to Republicans in recent elections, has been unable to stick to one. Trump is also trying to dismantle climate change efforts enacted by Democrats under President Joe Biden. Trump is trying to end the Department of Education in part because he says he wants to return more power over education to the states. At the same time, he's threatening state universities and school systems that want to prioritize a diverse environment. Trump has done all he can to strong-arm American institutions into ending diversity programs that are a reaction to the country's complicated racial past and is instead treating the inclusion of trans women in gendered sports as a major civil rights issue. The standoff between Trump and Newsom is in some ways the inverse of relationships between past Democratic presidents and Republican governors. While Trump is foisting troops onto Los Angeles over Newsom's objections, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, launched Operation Lone Star, which mobilized his state's National Guard to patrol the border and set up obstructions in spots when he felt federal authorities under Biden were not doing enough. Biden officials never threatened to arrest Abbott, however. Trump officials have warned mayors and Newsom against impeding federal immigration authorities. Abbott, for his part, took the initiative to put the Texas National Guard on standby as anti-deportation protests spread around the country. For instance, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders — who was Trump's first-term press secretary — was denied a request for tornado relief funds earlier this year. Sanders was ultimately able to obtain the funds by publicly lobbying and then calling Trump with a direct and personal appeal, as CNN's Gabe Cohen wrote. It would be interesting to see whether Newsom, a Democrat who has previously tangled with Trump, would be as successful. Trump has a history of denying assistance to California. He did it during his first term. In April, CNN reported that when billions of dollars in disaster funding were stalled, Republican governors had better luck at unfreezing them. The White House may already be cutting FEMA out of the equation, according to Cohen's report. He wrote that there have been multiple instances this year when FEMA has not been immediately notified that the White House had approved disaster relief packages, which led to delays in getting the funds out. Regardless, FEMA's normal way of doing business — approving aid based on nonpartisan formulas and the extent of damage — has been replaced by Trump's preferences. If a version of Trump's sweeping policy bill passes through Congress this year, it will also rewrite the social contract by which the federal government helps the lowest-income Americans. States would have to spend more to help provide health insurance through Medicaid programs, but they would also have to impose new work requirements, and millions of Americans would lose health insurance. Spending on food stamps, now called SNAP benefits, would be cut. Trump clearly wants the government to do less. Less foreign aid. Less scientific research. Less income taxes. Less responsibility to fund the social safety net. Except where he wants more. More defense spending. More tariffs (which are actually taxes). More military parades. More deportations.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia using peace talks to stall US sanctions, Zelensky says
Russia is attempting to delay peace negotiations to avoid tougher U.S. sanctions, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with German tabloid Bild on June 12. His comments come as Russia continues to reject a full ceasefire despite having initiated two rounds of peace talks in Istanbul — first on May 16 and on June 2. Both rounds resulted in agreements on prisoner exchanges, but failed to deliver progress toward ending hostilities. During the negotiations, Moscow ramped up ground offensives and launched massive attacks on Ukrainian cities. "It's important for them to show (U.S. President Donald) Trump that there is a diplomatic bridge between Ukraine and Russia," Zelensky told Bild. "So that sanctions aren't imposed against Russia" while talks are ongoing, Zelensky said, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy is to maintain the illusion of dialogue and then argue: "We're talking to each other! If sanctions are imposed, there will be no more talks." Zelensky warned that Moscow's goal is not peace but buying time. "Putin feels that his economy is now suffering," he said. "But he wants to gain even more time until the strong sanctions are introduced, because he can still hold out for some time." Trump has previously warned he would impose new sanctions on Moscow, but has yet to take the step. On June 5, Trump said he was withholding the move in hopes of a potential peace deal but warned he could act if Russia continues to stall. "When I see the moment where it's not going to stop... we'll be very tough," Trump told reporters. Critics, as well as Zelensky, argue that the slow implementation of sanctions gave Russia time to adapt its economy and defense sector. "The main mistake of the sanctions was that they were introduced too slowly," Zelensky said. Trump has repeatedly said he is monitoring the situation and hinted sanctions could come soon if progress is not made. Meanwhile, a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate that would impose harsh tariffs on countries buying Russian oil remains on hold as lawmakers await Trump's signal. Read also: 'Deadline is in my brain' — Trump dismisses timeline to impose Russian sanctions We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.