
Something needs to be done to save Germany. €1 trillion of debt is not it
Germans are famously – infamously, really – fiscally conservative. Believe me, I know: I am German and have witnessed for decades, indeed all my conscious life, how my compatriots have fretted obsessively over public debt.
They often conflate the rules that may work for individual, personal frugality with what is needed by a modern state and its economy. Indeed, they have crystallized their misguided ideal of how to manage public finance with a tight fist and little foresight in the odd avatar of 'the Swabian Housewife' (Swabians are stereotypically thrifty and prudent; sort of the Scots of the German sense of self).
And whenever the national adoration of the Swabian Housewife was not enough, plaintive sobs of 'Weimar, Weimar' were added. You see, Germany's first failed experiment at (more or less) democracy, the Weimar Republic of the interwar years, is said to have died, among other things, of inflation.
Hyperinflation, so this shaky but (formerly) extremely powerful tale of a
'
unique inflation trauma
'
goes, undermined that state's legitimacy from the very beginning, so that it could never grow strong enough to later withstand the pressure of the Great Depression and the Nazis.
Curiously enough, in this sorely mistaken version of recent German history, austerity was enshrined as the magic charm that will keep inflation away and therefore also other undesirable things such as Leni Riefenstahl movies, fascism, and starting and losing yet another world war while committing genocide.
In reality, it was, of course, precisely the austerity policy of the last Weimar governments, enacted about as undemocratically as is fashionable again now (see below), that really made the effects of the Great Depression even worse and helped open a path to power for the Nazis.
Read more
Dark night for Germany: Elections will change little, and nothing for the better
But this time, everything is different. In a truly unprecedented move –
instantly recognized as historic
, for better or, much more likely, worse – Germany's elites, in politics, the media, and academia,
have closed ranks Nuremberg-party-rally-style to make Germany splurge again
. The upshot is a fundamental policy change, complete with fixing the constitution, another thing Germans usually are obstinately conservative about. And all that to go into massive, quite possibly crippling debt for, in essence, war with Russia.
For, in sum,
there are three ways in which Germany wants to go on a big binge
: The so-called debt brake – an anachronistic and economically primitive limit on public debt – will be removed for anything having to do with 'defense', that is, in reality a massive rearmament program, including civil defense and the intelligence services, as well as for military assistance to Ukraine.
Second, the German government will also incur debt to the tune of another €500 billion to be spent over 12 years. This money is supposed to be invested in climate action (a sob to Germany's militaristic, far-right Greens) and infrastructure.
Infrastructure, here, has much to do with military purposes as well. No secret has been made out of the fact that often decrepit German railways, roads, and bridges, for instance, are to be renovated not merely for civilian and commercial purposes. Instead, as before in German history, trains and autobahn highways, for instance, are being highlighted
as key parts of military logistics
.
And as before as well, the big propaganda story is that they are needed for sending military forces into a fight against Russia. Only that this time, Germany is presented as a hub for all of NATO. Whatever 'all of NATO' may mean in the future.
Third – and usually overlooked – as Germany is a federation, its individual land states are also being empowered to assume additional debt. The way all of this is supposed to work together over the next decade or so, is complex. For instance, there are complicated and probably impractical rules designed to avoid labeling ordinary budget expenses and debt-making as part of this program. Yet the upshot is quite simple: The German government has created a tool
to add a total of about a trillion euros or even more
of debt.
It is true that to some extent, all of the above is simply a local variant of a general EU-plus-UK frenzy: With Brussels, London, and Paris as agitators-in-chief,
the whole shabby, stagnating bloc is dreaming big about going into massive debt
, perhaps even, in essence, confiscating private savings, to confront Russia. With or without the US. That is just another application of the key current governing principle of Western elites: Rule by permanent emergency. And if there is no real emergency around, they just make one up.
Read more
Meet the warmongers: This is where the EU's military frenzy is coming from
But there is also something specifically German about Berlin's 'Sonderweg' into deadly debt. For one thing, so much then for that old habit of whining about inflation in 'Weimar': It turns out that the one purpose that makes Germans overcome their hitherto allegedly debilitating fear of inflation and debt is – wait for it – launching a re-armament program in the style of 1930s Nazi Germany. Because, we must assume, unlike Weimar, that regime ended really well.
You see the irony, I trust. The Greeks probably spot the tragedy: In 2015, the Germans, most of all, turned their nation into a ritual sacrifice to the EU god of Austerity (the bloodthirsty Kali version of the local Swabian Housewife deity).
Yet if ideological-narrative clumsiness and an astonishing inability to see just how bemusing they sometimes look to others were the only problems here, it would just be Germany as usual. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Much more is at stake. Because there is a much worse irony: In principle, it is true that Germany urgently needs a big dose of Keynesianism, that is, of using public debt to relaunch its deindustrializing (compliments US and Ukraine) deathbed economy. Yet to tie this fundamentally sane and absolutely necessary policy to a hysterical war scare about Russia will produce great economic waste as well as terrible risks.
These risks include a ruinously costly failure of the policy with horrendously destabilizing domestic effects and an even more ruinous 'success', namely a self-fulfilling prophecy effect, in which what is officially presented as preventing war by increased deterrence will help bring that war about.
Let's get one thing out of the way: The problem is not even that Berlin is admitting, once again, not only how dilapidated the German military is, but that something needs to be done in earnest, that is expensive, about that weakness. A reasonable modernization is urgently needed; and that, in principle, is a fact that serious observers, including in Moscow, are likely to understand (whether they currently find it useful to say so out loud or not).
What makes the stress on rearmament so pernicious in this case are four features that the German elites have deliberately attached to it: Ukraine; exaggeration; a truly deranged, monotonous propaganda drive about an impending war with Russia; and last but not least, a coup-like implementation of the policy by an unusually shameless maneuver.
Read more
Volkswagen welcomes weapons opportunity
To deal with the most obvious first: German companies may, of course, find production locations and markets in Ukraine, especially if the moronic Western proxy war finally ends (and they would have to thank both Washington and Moscow for that, definitely not Berlin or Brussels). Such investment and commerce would also benefit Ukrainians.
But simply throwing money at Kiev and its corrupt regimes must end, because in realistic terms, Ukraine is not an asset but a great burden. And for those who wish to talk about what they misunderstand as 'values': Ukraine is not a democracy and does not have the rule of law or a halfway free media; its 'civil society' – at least what Westerners encounter in chic cafes in Kiev and on promotion tours across academia – is a bloated grant fraud gig; and to top it all off, it is extremely corrupt. For Berlin, it is perverse, self-damaging, and actually immoral to feed Ukrainian elites even more money.
Secondly, it is not possible to pin down the precise mix between military and civilian deficit spending that would be the optimal Keynesian mix to jolt Germany out its economic coma. But there can be no doubt that the current plans have erred on the military side, probably massively. For one thing, it is a simple economic fact that weapons and other military expenditures are not productive in the usual sense. They are at best third-best to prime the pump of a national economy. Those fantasizing about enormous knock-on effects to compensate for that fact are either ignorant or dishonest.
Unsurprisingly, even the German government's own chief auditing body – the Bundesrechnungshof – has criticized the debt plans: For the federal auditors, they are excessive as a whole. And, regarding their preponderant military side, they find that these expenses should not have been freed from the debt brake, making them, in effect, unlimited. As a result,
'long-term, high interest expenditures'
will threaten damage to state finances as well as corporations, leading to
'economic and social risks.'
Time will tell, but much of the currently fashionable boosterism and boasting is likely to be remembered with embarrassment. Joe Kaeser, the head of the Siemens conglomerate, for instance, may – like Chancellor-elect Friedrich Merz – exult now about Germany
being back
. He has clearly overlooked that, with Germany especially, the question should always be 'back to what?' Yet even he notices that 'we don't know exactly how'.
Really? What intriguing nonchalance when you are about to pick up a trillion euros of additional national debt. No wonder that even Switzerland's arch-capitalist and very Russophobic Neue Zuercher Zeitung has met the new German enthusiasm for debt
with pronounced skepticism
.
Thirdly, there is the war scare. For those who do not know German, it may be hard to imagine just how pervasively unhinged Germany's public sphere has become. Traditional as well as social media are feeding the population a constant, ceaseless torrent of Russophobic war-in-sight propaganda. The very few and thoroughly marginalized German critics of this manufactured mass psychosis speak of
war hysteria
, and they are right.
Read more
Bavaria wants German health system prepared for war
Tellingly, a small but ubiquitous platoon of experts-from-hell such as Carlo Masala, Soenke Neitzel, Gustav Gressel, and Claudia Major have gone into overdrive: After years of getting everything – yes, really, everything – wrong about the Ukraine conflict, they are now confidently predicting a war with Russia and telling Germans what to think and do about it.
Their fascinatingly diverse (not) and always fresh and surprising (also not, really not) discussions, pounding Germans on a nearly daily basis from one studio or another, usually now turn on when exactly 'the Russian' (Der Russe!) is going to strike. Opinions vary between essentially tomorrow morning and in a few years.
And that insanity is, unfortunately, now representative in Germany, at least among its so-called elites. One problem with this propaganda is old and obvious: Those spreading it start believing in it themselves. Indeed, in Germany, they have long reached that stage: Like the doomsday cult, which they really are, they are self-hystericizing and self-escalating.
Which means that while a rational German leadership would seek to balance due diligence in matters of security with national-interest-based diplomacy and, yes, cooperation with Russia, this type of approach is now impossible. Instead, those Germans who love to talk in the name of the nation are busy talking it into yet another very stupid, very unnecessary, and, in the end, very lost war.
Finally, there is the way in which this policy turn was executed. It may have been (barely, formally) legal, but if so, then only by the letter of the law. Its spirit and democracy as such have been violated vigorously and in public. For Merz, who is not even chancellor yet, has used the old, pre-election parliament to ram these changes through. The new parliament, already elected, would not have allowed him to find a majority for this operation.
This means Germany's next chancellor deliberately went against the already clearly declared will of the voters, and he did so by using a transparent dirty trick. All the parties helping him do so, including the Greens and his likely future coalition partners from the Social Democrats, have sullied themselves.
Read more
Democracy does not 'die in darkness,' it is dying in the EU right now
And all that while Merz has shown his contempt for law and decency by inviting the internationally wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu to Germany, and
Sarah Wagenknecht's BSW has been kept out of parliament by obvious election manipulation and extremely likely falsification
. No wonder many Germans have lost belief in the traditional parties. If there is one force standing to profit from all of the above it is, of course, the AfD, Germany's strongest opposition party now. German Centrists: Don't cry on our shoulders and don't whine about 'Russia, Russia, Russia' when your silly firewall against the AfD crumbles. You only have yourselves to blame.
Is there any hope left? Yes, maybe. Because although this is a terrible beginning, the policy just started is also meant to be carried out over a decade and more. Much may happen in that time. For instance, German corporations might finally – if quietly – rebel against being crippled by a self-defeating sanctions war against Russia, especially when their US competitors will be back in the Russia business,
as they are clearly itching to
. The Ukraine conflict may end in such a manner that Germany's Zelensky stans simply won't have anyone left to send the money to. Last but not least, even currently hyperventilating Germans may perhaps notice when Russia does not, actually, attack.
Yet for now, Germany is continuing on its path of severe and self-evident national self-harm. And unfortunately, history teaches that Germans can stay such a course through to a very bitter end. There are no guarantees that things will be better this time.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
06-05-2025
- Russia Today
Political chaos as German coalition fails to elect chancellor
Germany's main political parties have failed to elect an agreed candidate as chancellor in a historic moment for the EU nation's politics A proposed coalition of Germany's liberal and conservative parties has failed to elect a chancellor in a German parliament first round vote. Frederich Merz, the Christian Democratic candidate who was also backed by the liberal SPD, garnered 310 votes on Tuesday, falling six short of the 316 needed for an absolute majority. The session was adjourned for consultations among political groups regarding their next steps.


Russia Today
05-05-2025
- Russia Today
Western Memory of WWII is basically fan fiction
Historians seldom completely agree with one another even on some of the most important events of the past. There are different views on various historical events, such as World War II (WWII). With new documents being declassified and new excavations at the sites of the main battles, we are likely to see new theories and hypotheses emerging that will feed more discussions and offer contrarian narratives of the most devastating military conflict in the history of humanity. However, there is a clear red line between looking for new facts and deliberately trying to falsify history. The former is a noble quest for truth and understanding, while the latter is a deplorable attempt to revise past events in favor of political goals or personal ambitions. An honest scholar entering a research project cannot be completely sure what will be found at the end of the road; an unscrupulous politician presenting a falsified version of history knows perfectly well what picture to present to the target audience. Truth is skillfully mixed with lies, while fabrications are dissolved in real facts to make the picture more credible and attractive. The most graphic manifestation of the WWII falsifications is the now very popular assertion that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were jointly responsible for the beginning of the war. The narrative equating Nazis and Soviets is nonsensical because it completely ignores the history of fascism in Europe and repeated attempts by Moscow to convince London, Paris and Warsaw to form an alliance against it. Only after the 'Munich Betrayal' by the West, the 1938 pact among Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy that forced Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Germany without Czechoslovakian consent, did Moscow decide to go for a non-aggression treaty with Germany to buy itself time before invasion. Likewise, the dominant Western narrative of WWII increasingly frames the conflict as a stark moral battle between good and evil. As a result, there is a growing reluctance to fully acknowledge the pivotal roles that Russia and China played in the defeat of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. Neither do they recognize the contributions of communist-led resistance movements in countries like France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece. This is largely due to ideological biases that exclude these groups from the dominant narrative of 'heroic liberal forces' in the fight against the Axis nations, the coalition led by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Instead, the predominant view in most Western countries credits the US as the primary force behind victory, along with limited support from other allies. This reading of WWII has nothing to do with reality, but it nicely fits the now popular Manichean interpretation of world politics. Another typical distortion of history is the selective portrayal of the victims of the war, often shaped by a distinctly Eurocentric perspective. Much attention is given to the atrocities endured by Europeans under Nazi occupation or by Europeans in Asia at the hands of the Japanese, while the immense suffering of non-European populations frequently receives far less recognition. Every human life is of equal value, and all victims deserve empathy. Even those who served in the German and Japanese armed forces during WWII should not be indiscriminately labeled as criminals; the notion of 'collective guilt' must not override the principle of individual responsibility for verifiable war crimes. However, it is often overlooked in contemporary Western discourse that the Soviet Union and China suffered the heaviest human cost of WWII – with casualties reaching 27 million and 35 million, respectively. A significant portion of these losses were civilians, and the scale and brutality of wartime atrocities committed on Soviet and Chinese territories far exceeded those experienced in most other regions. Contemporary politics inevitably shapes how we interpret the past, as people often seek historical narratives that align with their present-day beliefs and agendas. Yet history should be approached with integrity, not as a tool to justify current political positions. This is not about defending national pride or preserving comforting myths; every nation, regardless of size or wealth, carries both moments of honor and episodes of regret in its historical journey. A balanced national narrative includes both triumphs and failures. But when history is deliberately manipulated to serve short-term political interests, we risk blurring our understanding of the present and undermining our vision for the future. Such willful distortion is not only intellectually dishonest but could also lead to grave article was first published by CGTN.


Russia Today
05-05-2025
- Russia Today
Labeling the AfD ‘extremist' will backfire terribly
Germany's domestic intelligence service, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (literally, the Federal Office for Protecting the Constitution), has released a bombshell: Based on a report of over a thousand pages, the Verfassungsschutz has classified the AfD (Alternative for Germany) party as 'confirmedly right-extremist.' Or, to translate from bureaucratese, 'extreme-right.' That means that the AfD is now officially tagged as hostile to the constitutional order of Germany. Regional branches of the party as well as its former youth organization have been given the same label before. The party as a whole has been formally labeled a 'suspect case' (Verdachtsfall) for years, which already allowed the Verfassungsschutz to spy on it. This new classification now is not yet a prohibition. It is more akin to an extreme form of official blacklisting: In practical terms, the AfD can still contest elections, citizens can still vote for it, and its candidates can still represent them. It is also not a crime to be a member of the AfD; there are currently about 51,000. At the same time, members who are also public servants, for instance in the police, may well face individual assessments of their loyalty to the state. Conveniently, the Verfassungsschutz has not published the report underlying its finding. But its key allegations against the AfD have been advertised widely: Due to its – very real and often brutal – xenophobic rhetoric, the AfD stands accused of systematically offending against human dignity, an ideal explicitly protected as 'inviolable' by the very first article and first paragraph of the German constitution (formally known as the Basic Law). More broadly, the AfD, the Verfassungsschutz argues, advances an ethno-chauvinistic – to translate the almost untranslatable German adjective 'völkisch' – concept of the German population that discriminates against those who are not or not entirely of ethnic German descent. That is – full disclosure – Germans such as me, for instance. That as well, the domestic intelligence experts charge, is not compatible with Germany's constitutional order. That Germans can, for now, still vote AfD does not mean that the Verfassungsschutz's new move is a formality. On the contrary, it is a grievous and misguided escalation, in three ways: It allows the government to boost spying on the AfD by surveillance and informers to the maximum. In principle at least, it greatly stigmatizes the party in the public sphere. Finally, if a formal procedure to achieve a full prohibition were to be initiated, then its chances of success have now increased. Little wonder then that the AfD has already announced that it will fight the new classification in the courts. It is hard to predict its chances of overturning it. For one thing, last year the AfD lost a similar case – if with lower stakes – when it contested its prior Verfassungsschutz categorization as 'suspect.' It's little wonder also that some political opponents of the AfD are already loudly clamoring for fresh attempts to fully ban the AfD and remove it from German politics by brute suppression. 'If you can't beat them, snuff them' might as well be the motto of those AfD rivals. For, despite silly claims to the contrary, the escalating attack on the party is inevitably political and does reflect the AfD's massive recent success: with 25 percent and more, the AfD is now often the strongest single party in German polls; it did very well at the last federal elections, taking second place with almost 21 percent after the mainstream conservatives; it has a large parliamentary presence of 152 seats, doubling its previous weight. It is, by far, the largest and most important opposition party. Many Germans will, rightly, see the current moves against the AfD as a political abuse of legal norms – in short, lawfare – to hamstring or destroy a political rival that has become too threatening. Some German mainstream politicians, including the always extremely cautious Olaf Scholz, are more reticent. Scholz, notoriously, is the man who smiled sheepishly when Washington let the world know it would take out Germany's Nord Stream pipelines; he also denies the Gaza genocide, while Germany is supplying Israel with arms and political support. Scholz, in other words, is the opposite of a courageous hero. And yet, his hesitence about going for a full ban on the AfD makes sense. Because, in simple practical terms, notwithstanding the Verfassungsschutz classification, that, too, would be an undertaking with an unpredictable outcome. Fortunately, German law makes it difficult to completely prohibit a party: Only three institutions can start the legal process – parliament, the federal council (the upper chamber, representing Germany's states), and the federal government in Berlin – and only the country's constitutional court can decide such a case. Similar hurdles would have to be overcome to deprive the AfD of public funding, another demand currently made with fresh force by its opponents. If there were an attempt to prohibit the AfD and it failed, the only party profiting from it would be, obviously, the AfD: it would then be able to claim both the mantle of martyrdom and victory over the deep state and its lawfare. Like Donald Trump recently in the US, the AfD has an in-built capacity to politically profit from persecution that its enemies underestimate at their peril. Even if a prohibition attempt were to succeed, simply abolishing a party that a quarter (and counting) of German voters are supporting would, of course, trigger enormous, justified frustrations and a massive popular backlash. But there are even more – and more fundamental – reasons why both the current ostracizing of the AfD and a potential full ban are very bad ideas. First, various commentators and politicians have already pointed out that the industrial-strength blacklisting now applied to the AfD is likely to buttress the so-called 'firewall,' that is, in essence, the abysmal policy of all other parties to rule out the AfD as a coalition partner, that is, to systematically exclude it from government no matter how many Germans vote for it. In practical terms, this means that, in terms of both numbers and real – if denied – ideological affinity, the AfD, not the SPD, should be forming a government with the CDU now: The firewall already has momentous distorting effects on election consequences, and all Germans can see it. The firewall also means that by now more than a fifth of German voters are, in effect, partly disenfranchised and treated as second-class voters and thus second-class citizens. That's because their votes clearly are deprived – deliberately and, as it were, by definition – of a power that all other votes have, namely, to potentially influence not only the composition of parliament but that of government as well. The firewall is, in other words, not something good democrats should be proud of; it is a blatant form of massive discrimination. What makes this particularly harmful is that the AfD is dominant in what used to be East Germany. Hence, discriminating against it and its voters means, inevitably, discriminating not only politically, which is bad enough, but regionally as well, along the worst possible fault line in all of Germany. Consider, for instance, how not only but especially AfD voters or members in the former East Germany must feel, when they hear CDU politician Marco Wanderwitz claim that the AfD 'must be eliminated' because as long as it is around 'to fill up' voters (all Wanderwitz's own bizarre terms) with its ideology, those same voters cannot be reclaimed by 'democracy.' It's hard to imagine a more patronizing and demeaning statement. Good luck, Germany, with riding out the polarizing effects of such approaches, combining the obviously unfair with the obnoxiously offensive. Second, it is true that significant parts of the AfD – not merely a fringe – are far or extreme right. But, even if that may be counterintuitive too many, to fight the party with lawfare is still principally – not only pragmatically – wrong, because all German mainstream parties – as well as much of the AfD, by the way – support come-what-may a very far-right Israeli regime that has been stomping on that famous human dignity for decades and has been committing a live-streamed genocide since late 2023. It is ludicrous, peak hypocrisy to stand by apartheid-genocidal Israel in foreign policy but try to blacklist or even forbid the AfD domestically. Third, all too few Germans seem to be aware that the whole idea of protecting democracy by aggressively identifying those accused of not supporting it and then marginalizing and suppressing them has a very dark history. Instead, the simplistic tale Germans are told again and again by their leaders and mainstream media is that this ideal of so-called 'militant democracy' is the correct post-World War Two response to the manner in which the Nazis came to power in 1933. As if that so-called 'seizure of power' had not been most of all the outcome of a conspiracy – in practice, not 'theory' – of small traditional elites. 'Militant democracy,' on the other hand, was actually tried out already during World War II; not, obviously, in Nazi Germany but in the US, under the direct influence of the recognized and usually venerated intellectual father of the concept, the German émigré Karl Loewenstein. Regarding those who think that 'militant democracy' can do 'merely' political and not very concrete, brutal harm, they should urgently read up on this first experiment in Loewensteinian democracy 'defense.' For Loewenstein did not just theorize, argue, and lobby. As American historian Udi Greenberg has long shown in his book 'The Weimar Century' and a shorter online article, Loewenstein inspired and played an important role in a long international US campaign to identify and suppress alleged 'subversives' in the Western hemisphere. Carried out under Washington's leadership in several countries of Latin America as well, this campaign ended up surveiling, incarcerating, and deporting thousands, without due process or appeal, simply by administrative fiat. At its peak stood literal, now mostly forgotten – unlike the better-known case of the World War II persecution of Japanese Americans – concentration camps on US soil. And – surprise, surprise – many of the victims were, of course, innocent. Indeed, Greenberg found that US officials knew they 'posed no security threat' and that 'only a tiny minority' among them were even politically active in any way. What the preponderant majority was repressed for was not what they had done – nothing – but who they were or, in the eye of over-eager and over-empowered security bureaucrats, seemed to be. The same American officials also knew that many arrests were really 'motivated by racism or greed, with internal reports mentioning 'policemen's plans to take over the prisoners' houses.' Finally, to reach peak absurdity, US officials were aware from internal reporting that the victims of their campaign included Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, now absurdly targeted as enemy agents. If you have never heard about this extensive practical test of the concept of 'militant democracy,' guided by its intellectual godfather himself, and its extremely dark outcomes, then ask yourself why. Germany may end up prohibiting its biggest, most important opposition party – in the name of 'democracy.' This would be a new milestone in the EU's relentlessly escalating – Romania, France, even Moldova, which is not even a member yet – authoritarian campaign to bend voters to the will of radical-Centrist establishment parties that monopolize the notion of democracy and thereby undermine, even destroy whatever is left of its reality. Whether you like AfD politics or not – I do not, not at all – you should understand that the real if insidious threat to democracy comes from those waging lawfare against it.