What is the dirtiest business area in Uganda
ONLINE EXTRA No. 273
It was the seventies of the last century when, for the first time after 1945, terrorist attacks - from the right, from the left and from Arab countries - shook the still young, democratic society of the Federal Republic of Germany. If one examines the major accounts of German contemporary historiography, it is of course just as conspicuous as it requires explanation that they largely neglect this topic or, at best, keep an eye on terror from the left. At least that is the thesis of the historian and journalist Martin Jander. Jander sees the cause of this inadequate attention to the nature and effect of terrorism on the part of contemporary historiography in an equally inadequate examination of National Socialism, which is too little aware of its blind spots. As a result, the threat that was reflected in the various teorrisms, particularly for Israel and the USA, was just as poorly understood as the phenomena of an inadequate engagement with National Socialism and anti-Semitism and an inadequate assumption of guilt, to be lamented in both German states and responsibility for your own history.
In his contribution, Jander makes it clear how much these deficiencies contributed to disregarding the shock to Israel in particular, triggered there by left-wing Arab terrorism, the cooperation of German and Palestinian terrorists in the war against Israel, and the GDR's support for Arab countries . He shows how the "negative central ideas of modernity: anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Zionism" played a decisive role and led, among other things, to serious misjudgments in the politics of the social-liberal governments:
"Under the Brandt and Schmidt governments, German left-wing and right-wing terrorism was essentially viewed as a threat to the Federal Republic and its representatives. According to the assessment at the time, this terrorism was primarily about the reputation of the Federal Republic and its progress in development that this terror was aimed primarily at the USA and Israel and also affected them, and that it was primarily and only secondarily aimed at the Federal Republic of Germany and its representatives, insofar as they were allies of the USA and were Israel, that was not really noticed at the time. "
Jander's contribution goes back to a lecture he gave at the conference "From Entebbe to Mogadishu: Terrorism in the 1970s and its History, Memory and Legacy" held at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in January 2017. It is complete orally (as mp3) and has already appeared elsewhere in writing in a much abbreviated form in both English and German. Please note the editorial note at the end of the annotation apparatus. Today it appears as ONLINE EXTRA for COMPASS for the first time in a completely unabridged version.
COMPASS thanks Martin Jander for the permission to reproduce his text at this point!
© 2018 Copyright by the author
online exclusively for ONLINE EXTRA
Contemporary history in the Federal Republic of Germany and non-state terrorism after 1945
Table of Contents:
1. Willy Brandt: "(no) neutrality of the heart"?
2. Social history after the Shoah
2.1. Hans Ulrich Wehler
2.2. Heinrich August Winkler
2.3. Ulrich Herbert
3. Gamal Abdel Nasser: "You can't let yourself be blackmailed forever."
4. Negative central ideas of modernity: anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Zionism.
5. Hannah Arendt: "positive political declaration of intent to the victims"
6. Inge Deutschkron: "Israel and the Germans"
6.1. Anti-guilt anti-Semitism
6.2. Racism and anti-semitism
7. Federal Republic of Germany: "... particularly affected"?
7.1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
7.2. Gideon Hausner
8. Open secrets
Western democracies are fragile structures. We are experiencing this in a dramatic way in the present period in human history. They are based on many different pillars. In contrast to dictatorial regimes, they do not have an obligatory philosophy, but without the consent of the citizens to the central statements of the constitution, without what Habermas formulated “constitutional patriotism”, they are not viable.1 The beginning of an ever increasing number of women citizens and to question citizens of Western democracies, the idea that has been central to the Enlightenment, according to which all people in this world are born equal and free and are entitled to the same rights, then the very existence of Western democracies would be endangered. To put it simply, democracies can abolish themselves.
The terrorism of the 1970s massively challenged the democracies of the West. He not only sought representatives of the state to attack important decision-makers, he also stirred up hatred of individual countries and groups of people. With the use of violence and its propaganda, the actors and financiers of terrorism sought to bring down the central foundations of Western democracies. In essence, their attack was directed at the central idea of these states, the equality of all people.
The goals of the internationally networked terrorists were no secret. The actors and planners of the attacks did not hide them. Take, for example, the declaration made by the hijackers of the Lufthansa aircraft “Landshut” on October 13, 1977 to Mogadishu. The PFLP command was named after itself Martyr Halimeh given. With this name it honored the terrorist of the Revolutionary cells Brigitte Kuhlmann, who, as a member of a German-Palestinian commando, hijacked an airplane to Entebbe in 1976 and died when the hostages were liberated by an Israeli special command
However, the command did not only use this name to express its war against Israel, the USA and the western democracies in general. In the press release on the kidnapping, in advance by Wadi Haddad and members of the Red Army Fraction formulated, it said: “The aim of this operation is to free our comrades from the prisons of the imperialist-reactionary-Zionist alliance. (,,,) Revolutionaries and freedom fighters all over the world are confronted with the monstrosity of world imperialism - this barbaric war under the hegemony of the USA against the peoples of the world. in this war imperialist sub-centers like israel and the brd fulfill the executive function of the suppression and liquidation of every revolutionary movement in and on their specific areas. in our occupied country the imperialist-zionist-reactionary enemy demonstrates the highest level of his bloody hostility and aggressiveness against our people and our revolution, against all arab masses and their patriotic and progressive forces. the expansionist and racist nature of israel - with menachem begin at the helm of this product of imperialist interests - is clearer than ever. West Germany was built on the same imperialist interests in 1945 as a us base. (...) between the two regimes Bonn and Tel Aviv there is close and special cooperation in the military and economic fields, as well as extensive agreement on political positions. the two hostile regimes are united against the patriotic and revolutionary liberation movements of the world in general and the arab world, africa and latin america. (...) they supply weapons and military, technical and nuclear know-how; they send mercenaries and give credit; they open their markets and break the boycott and economic siege of this regime. a significant example is the close cooperation between mossad and the german secret services and cia and dst, which made the dirtiest piracy of the imperialist-reactionary alliance possible: the zionist invasion of entebbe. in fact, the similar character of neo-nazism in west germany and zionism in israel is becoming increasingly clear. In both countries - a reactionary ideology prevails, - fascist, discriminatory and racist labor laws are enforced, - the ugly methods of psychological and physical torture and murder are used against the fighters for freedom and national liberation, - forms of collective punishment are practiced the 'endowment' of international law such as the right of inmates to humane treatment, fair negotiation and defense completely abolished. while the zionist regime is the highly independent and practical continuation of nazism, the bonn government and the parties in its parliament are doing their best to renew nazism and expansionist racism in west germany, especially in the military establishment and other state institutions. we will force the enemy to release our prisoners who challenge him daily by not stopping to fight oppression even in prison. VICTORY OF THE UNITY OF ALL REVOLUTIONARY FORCES IN THE WORLD. ”3
Almost no statement in this statement can be reconciled with the facts. This declaration does not deal with the world of the 1970s. The text produces an ideological parallel world in which revolutionary and progressive peoples are covered with barbaric war by a monster, the USA, and stand up against it. The alleged fascist sub-centers of Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany are the helpers of this war in the USA. Zionism and German fascism merge, so the declaration, in this war.
The text brings together exemplarily the different motives that the internationally networked terrorism of the 1970s brought up in the war against the western democracies. National and social revolutionary motives were bundled. The western democracies were discredited as fascist and therefore destructive. Anti-Zionism was mobilized explicitly and anti-Semitism implicitly. 4
In addition to the targeted terrorist attacks on individual politicians or certain governments, the planners were looking for this terrorist network, which was mainly led by Palestinians and their supporters in Arab states, and were looking for the PLO, Red Army Fraction and to stir up other national, social revolutionary and anti-Semitic opposition forces against the liberal democracies of the West. The fact that at that time Germans and Palestinians had found a common language in the war against Israel, the USA and the western democracies as a whole must have caused a shock. The horror about it was much greater in Israel than in the Federal Republic.
Do you already know the daily issues of
COMPASS information service?
COMPASS delivers links twice a week
to the very latest articles from the following subject areas:
! 5 issues free of charge and without obligation!
Order your trial subscription now:
1. Willy Brandt: "(no) neutrality of the heart"?
The shock caused by the cooperation of German and Palestinian terrorists in the war against Israel is not present in Germany, or rather present in a very different way than in Israel. In Israel it is spoken somewhat coarsely when the return of German desires for annihilation is remembered in a different guise. In the Federal Republic of Germany more and almost exclusively as the threat to its own democracy from communist extremists.
This also has to do with the fact that in German contemporary historiography and in the public debate it is hardly noticed that the foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany got into various conflicts with Israel in the 1970s. The GDR had been in conflict, or rather in the undeclared war with Israel, since the 6-day war in 1967.5 It had been pursuing anti-Israel policies since the early 1950s. So it was no surprise that the SED allowed the PLO to open an office in East Berlin in 1973. It was dangerous, but it wasn't really a surprise.
It was unexpected, however, that the two social democratic Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, who, as they emphasized several times, championed a “neutral policy” in the Middle East, demanded a “normality” in German-Israeli relations, the PLO Yasser Arafat paid tribute to and, at the same time as they did so, allied sections of German society with the PLO and its sub-organizations, which were working towards the delegitimization and destruction of Israel.
It is true that Willy Brandt had expressly spoken to the European Parliament in Strasbourg and on other occasions on November 13, 1973 that German-Israeli relations had "a special character" and that there was "no neutrality of heart and conscience" for Germans on this issue. could give6, but that apparently did not rule out a distance to Israel in the actions. The attitude and the policy draft of the two Social Democratic Chancellors were so surprising at the time because the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) was one of the main proponents of support for Israel after World War II. Without the SPD, Adenauer would not have brought the “Luxembourg Agreement” through the Bundestag in 1953.
The politics of the two social democratic chancellors and the participation of Germans in terrorist activities against Israel sparked great fears not only in Israel. The Jewish communities in the Federal Republic were also very worried. One of the most important authors on the history of German-Israeli relations, the journalist Inge Deutschkron7, found the anti-Semitism that was again articulating in Germany at the time so dangerous that she left her place of residence and work in Bonn in 1972 and moved to Tel Aviv. 8
The real shock in Israel about the foreign policy of the Federal Republic and the attitude of its citizens to Israel already dates back to a few years before the plane hijacked to “Entebbe”. The drama of the robbery of a commando of the Black September, a sub-organization of Fatah, on the Israeli Olympic team in 1972 in Munich, had seriously shocked Israelis. The behavior of the German authorities, who had failed to free the hostages, had been perceived as bumbling. But when the German government was unable to vigorously oppose the release of the surviving members of the command on October 29, 1972, the public mood in Israel changed.9 Did the Germans even want to prevent the release? Or did they want to make peace with its enemies at Israel's expense?
The image of the Federal Republic of Germany was completely changed in 1973. In October of that year, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. On the highest Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur, they tried to accomplish what they failed to do immediately after the state was founded in 1948: Israel was to be wiped off the map. The attack in October 1973 came as a surprise. In the first phase of the war, it almost looked like the armies of Egypt and Syria might succeed.
That the GDR supported the opposing troops, had supplied them with weapons since the end of the 6-day war, was dangerous, but it cannot be unexpected. It was also not surprising that the PLO and its armed formations gave everything to make the attack on Egypt and Syria a success. But it was surprising that the government of the Federal Republic of Germany prohibited the US troops stationed in the Federal Republic from supplying the Israeli army with weapons via their bases. In the end, this led to lasting disturbance in Israel about the political state of the Federal Republic.
The fact that the Federal Republic in the Middle East behaved "neutral" in the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors and the Palestinians could and had to be understood in Israel as support for the enemies of the state. The social-liberal federal governments since Willy Brand had not only initiated a new Ostpolitik, but also their own Middle East policy. They signaled equidistance to the conflicting parties in the Middle East and treated the interests of Israel as secondary. The cooperation of German and Palestinian terrorists rightly reinforced this negative image.
The participation of right and left terrorists from Germany in the war against Israel was only the tip of the iceberg. In the Federal Republic of Germany, since the 6-day war, a potential of opponents and enemies that had not been recognized before had arisen beyond the armed underground groups.It strengthened the already not small number of conservative skeptics of German-Israeli relations, with completely different arguments
Not only concerns about the oil deliveries from Arab countries alone or the fear of international recognition of the GDR were brought up here. With the support of Israel, so it was now said almost in unison by parts of the radical left and the radical right, they are supporting a second Holocaust, a genocide of the Palestinian people, they are being blackmailed by Israel into supporting this genocide with German arms deliveries.
2. Social history after the Shoah
The conflict, or better said the conflicts between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s, were so violent and so clear that it is initially only interesting whether and how they appear in representations of important German contemporary historians on the subject. The perspective in which the historians view the topic is initially irrelevant.
For this little investigation, the representations of three authors were chosen who see the post-war history of the German states in their connection to the history of Germany at least since the establishment of the German nation-state in 1871. The presentations will be given by Hans Ulrich Wehler11, Ulrich Herbert12 and Heinrich August Winkler13. Most of your publications appeared after the unification of the two German states. None of the three historians are marginal figures in the scientific community. Your work is currently authoritative for many German authors.
2.1. Hans Ulrich Wehler
In the oldest of the aforementioned large overall presentations of German history, the five-volume "German History of Society" by Hans-Ulrich Wehler, which was written between 1987 and 200814, the presentation of the cooperation between German terrorists and armed Palestinian formations, the consequences of which in "Entebbe" and “Mogadishu” became visible, a full five pages. “Entebbe” itself is not mentioned at all, “Mogadishu” only briefly. The systematic cooperation of German left-wing terrorists with armed Palestinian formations is not worth a line to the most important author of a new economic and social history in Germany. The fact that German right-wing terrorists also cooperated with Palestinians does not appear in his book
At least there is an indication of the existence of a “latent anti-Semitism” in Wehler, which was also found in the student movement and which enabled left-wing students to sympathize with “radical Palestinian guerrilla movements.” 16 In the summary of the presentation on “Mogadishu”, Wehler also holds states that the “state government and parliament, law enforcement authorities and the judiciary against political terrorism” have successfully prevailed, “without being able to completely dry out the underworld of the sympathizers.” 17 The badly strained “problem-solving capacity” was thanks to a happy political constellation in the Bonn decision-making center and thanks to the realistic willingness to act, sufficient to overcome the crisis under the most difficult conditions.
The development of an anti-Israel policy in the GDR since the beginning of the 1950s, following the anti-Jewish persecution measures in all communist parties in Eastern Europe, is dealt with on two sides by Wehler.18 That the GDR, in particular the Ministry for State Security, the armed formations of the Supporting Palestinians in their cooperation with both left-wing and right-wing West German terrorists and arming the Arab states that were waging war against Israel is not mentioned at all in the presentation. 19
The foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany and especially the German-Israeli relations play no role in Wehler's account. There are longer passages in which Wehler deals with “dealing with National Socialism” 20 and with the “politics of reparation” 21. There is no even a rough picture of the political controversies between Israel and the Federal Republic and the GDR in the 1970s.
2.1. Heinrich August Winkler
In Heinrich August Winkler's account, which appeared fourteen years earlier22, the period between “Entebbe” and “Mogadishu” and the portrayal of left-wing German terrorism only take up five pages.23 “Entebbe” does not appear at all, while “Mogadishu” is very detailed . The presentation focuses entirely on Helmut Schmidt's chancellorship and his politics in 1977, during the kidnapping of Hans Martin Schleyer and the “Landshut” plane.
The connection of German left-wing terrorism with the armed formations of the Palestinians is mentioned in the example of the hijacking of the plane “Landshut”, but is not analyzed in more detail.24 That there was also cooperation between armed Palestinian formations with German terrorist formations from the right-wing political spectrum originated is not mentioned at all.
In the résumé of the account of “Mogadishu”, Winkler stated that the terrorists' calculation that their violence would provoke “fascist” counter-violence did not work out. On the contrary, the autumn of 1977 left behind a “weakened fundamental opposition from the left” and a democracy in the Federal Republic that “grew new self-confidence from its triumph over terrorism” 25.
The development of an anti-Israeli policy in the GDR since the beginning of the 1950s, following the anti-Jewish purges in all communist parties in Eastern Europe and since the 6-day war, is not mentioned at all by Winkler Supporting Palestinians in their cooperation with both left and right German terrorists and armed the Arab states that were waging war against Israel is also missing from his book.
The foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany also plays no role in Winkler's account. Mention is made, however, that the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir told an American television station on November 15, 1989 that if the Germans were to become "the strongest people in Europe and perhaps in the world" again, then they could again use the opportunity to attract millions of Jews kill. 27
2.3. Ulrich Herbert
The work by Ulrich Herbert, which appeared only recently in 2014, 28 devotes a full six pages to the period and the topic of left-wing German terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s.29 The hostage-taking in Entebbe and Mogadishu are mentioned, including the connection between German left-wing radicals Palestinians are warned. But the connection between German left-wing terrorism and the war of the armed Palestinian formations against Israel is ignored.
The cooperation between the terrorist groups emerging from the right-wing political spectrum and the armed Palestinians is also not mentioned in the publication. There is absolutely no mention of the propaganda agenda of the armed Palestinian formations. Herbert expressly formulates that West German left-wing terrorism is "more likely to be explained by the national constellation in Germany than by international developments."
In summary, the author states that it is not entirely certain whether the victory over terrorism in 1977 - German police units had stormed the hijacked "Landshut" plane at Mogadishu airport and freed all hostages alive - had "created identity" as is occasionally noted. But, and with this formulation Herbert articulates his view of the importance of German terrorism, the Federal Republic has gained "emotional acceptance" with this victory at least in the national-conservative spectrum of the population and passed "a test" when it did not maintain its "sovereignty in a state of emergency but in observing democratic principles even in difficult situations. ”31
Herbert also only briefly mentions the development of an anti-Israel policy in the GDR since the beginning of the 1950s, following the wave of anti-Jewish persecution in all communist parties in Eastern Europe, and since the 6-day war.32 That the GDR, especially the ministry State security, which supported armed formations of the Palestinians in their cooperation with both left and right-wing German terrorists, is just as little mentioned in the description as the foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany towards Israel.
3. Gamel Abdel Nasser: "You can't let yourself be blackmailed forever"
It is astonishing that the conflicts of German politics with Israel and the emergence of left and right-wing extremist terrorist currents do not really take up much space in the representations of Wehler, Winkler and Herbert. These conflicts took place in public in the 1970s and were usually widely commented on. Some of the events have not yet been thoroughly researched in detail, but the outlines of this story have long been clearly recognizable and therefore represent a kind of "open secret".
Immediately after Israel was founded in 1947 and 1948, the various Arab opponents of Israel - who tried to prevent its creation by means of a war, but failed in the process - occupied themselves with the attitude of the Federal Republic in particular to the State of Israel.33 The Federal Republic of Germany came into focus because in the 1950s she began to help the Israeli state overcome its difficulties in building and developing the country. The decisive factors for this were the agreement of March 1953, referred to by the federal government as “reparation”, as well as the arms deliveries to the Israeli army agreed by Franz-Josef Strauss and Shimon Peres, which began in 1959.
The states that, after the defeat in the war against the establishment of Israel in 1948, hoped for a second war against Israel, opposed the Federal Republic's support for Israel in the 1950s and 1960s and began to exert pressure on its foreign policy. One of the means of pressure was, among other things. to threaten to establish relations with the GDR and, that is easily overlooked, to mobilize the existing opposition in the society of the Federal Republic to the foreign policy course of the federal governments.
For example, the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser received an invitation to Walter Ulbricht to Egypt in 1964 at the beginning of 1965 mirror given an interview that was published under the heading “You can't let yourself be blackmailed forever” in February 1965.34 In the interview, Nasser had worded the sentence quoted in the heading in the interview with Spiegel editors in exactly the same way and also explained it that he had read “that the former Federal Chancellor, Adenauer, had declared” that he had agreed to the gifts of arms to Israel under pressure from a foreign power. ”He, Nasser,“ did not understand this dependency ”. In any case, he would “welcome it if a nation as large as the German would play its own independent role in the world” and not “a tool in the hands of foreign powers, e. B. the Americans and the Israelis "35
Shortly before Ulbricht's visit to Cairo, Nasser also had the right-wing extremist German National and Soldiers Newspaper given an interview by Gerhard Frey in which he stated that the number of 6,000,000 Jews killed was a “lie ”.36 The editor of the Frey newspaper had assisted Nasser in the interview with the remark that the“ The fact of the murders of the Jews "is not denied by anyone, but" most Germans "have" long since recognized "that" numbers are being used here ". 37
With the differently weighted formulations of the two interviews, Gamal Abdel Nasser addressed various currents of political hostility to good German-Israeli relations in the GDR and in the Federal Republic of Germany. With his statements, he served the “left” criticism of the country's sovereignty allegedly restricted by the USA and Israel, gave space to the “right” view of the alleged blackmail of the Germans and also mobilized anti-Semitic denial of the Holocaust.
Pressure was not necessary on the GDR in the 1960s. She had been a supporter of Israel's Arab enemies since the 1950s. The communist-dictatorial GDR could be lured with offers. The leadership of the state was looking for political recognition. Appointments were quickly possible here. The GDR achieved its breakthrough in international recognition at the end of the 1960s, primarily through various agreements with Arab countries. As a rule, diplomatic relations were also followed by military alliances. The GDR was also happy to allow itself to be used against Israel for propaganda purposes. 38
On the other hand, pressure on the Federal Republic of Germany seemed necessary and at the same time promising. She had long hesitated to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. In addition, it was not hidden from anyone that the attempt to support the society of Holocaust survivors was not without opposition. Broad social groups turned against German-Israeli relations in both the 1950s and 1960s.
The encouragement of Nasser et al. fell on fertile ground in both German states. They functioned as amplifiers of pre-existing attitudes and political aspirations. When the Federal Republic of Germany signed the first treaty with Israel in 1953, the “Luxembourg Agreement”, politicians from the right and the left had raised their objections to German-Israeli relations.
The MP for the right-wing extremists Socialist Reich Party did not agree to the “Luxembourg Agreement” with Israel in 1953 and justified this with the fact that the number of murdered Jews in Europe was only 1,000,000 people. Furthermore, he argued, there should be no negotiation with Israel, which had driven the Arabs out of their country. 39
The Communist parliamentary group controlled from the GDR also refused to approve the agreement in 1953. Their MPs argued that the treaty had nothing to do with reparation, only Israeli industrialists supposedly did a great deal with the deal; behind the idea of the agreement, they added, was primarily American high finance.40
That left and right German terrorists together with the Fatah fought for the destruction of Israel is hardly surprising against this background.
4. Negative central ideas of modernity: anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Zionism
There are various reasons why this prehistory of the conflicts between the two German states with Israel and the cooperation between the GDR and right-wing and left-wing West German terrorists with the enemies of Israel only appear marginally in publications on contemporary German history. An essential reason can be seen in the fact that the works of the three historians presented underestimate the role and importance of racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the development of German society in modern times. The anti- or counter-modernity in modernity, as Jeffrey Herf called it in his work “Reactionary Modernism” 41, the “reactionary modernity”, evidently does not form an element in their representations that has been included from the beginning and continues in various forms to this day.
The authors analyze German society and its history as the history of a modern society in the West and also assume that the development of Germany towards the modern age and in the modern age was characterized by various crises and upheavals. However, they do not put racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism at the center of these crises and upheavals. That modern societies always have their own opposite, anti-modernity, 42 that there is, as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer put it, a “dialectic of the Enlightenment”, this assumption does not seem to have played a really essential role for historians.43
It is by no means only the cooperation of Arab terrorists with German anti-Semites from the right and left political spectrum of the Federal Republic that is not mentioned or only marginally mentioned in the representations. If you leaf through the works, this also applies to such important events, such as the genocide of the Herero and Nama by German troops at the beginning of the 20th century; it also applies to the so-called census of Jews during World War I and the pogrom in Berlin's Scheunenviertel in November 1923, just before Hitler's attempted coup in Munich on November 9th. The list of events that point to long-standing racism and anti-Semitism in Germany, not just the Shoah itself, could easily be extended.
The surprise at this conceptual void and the many omissions that follow it in the three representations by Winkler, Wehler and Herbert is particularly great because all three do not understand each other explicitly but implicitly in the tradition of scientific analyzes of the German Sonderweg . There can be no doubt that all three authors take up this paradigm in different forms, differentiate it and work on it. The many German peculiarities and contradictions in the development of a Western democracy in Germany, such as anti-Semitism, racism and more, are among the determining concerns of this tradition of historiography about Germany, which is obviously not taken up by the three authors mentioned.44
All three authors belong beyond this, and this is one of the reasons why the conceptual underestimation of anti-Semitism and racism comes as a surprise to the group of historians who, during the famous “historians' dispute” in the 1980s, more or less clearly presented the justification for the annihilation of European Jews by the historian Ernst Nolte had criticized 45
All three had emphasized in their criticisms Nolte that in his essay “Past that will not pass” 46 from June 1986 he tried, as Winkler put it, “to derive the extermination of European Jews from Stalin's crimes and Hitler’s approach as an act the putativnotwehr (against a Jewish war against Germany - the author) understandable. ”47
Wehler, Winkler and Herbert had understood that anti-Semitism and racism in different forms also formed a fact in both German states after National Socialism. In spite of this knowledge, in their portrayals of racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, the concepts of the three essential traditions of political terror in the Federal Republic of Germany after 1945, they do not give their due place in German social history.
5. Hannah Arendt: "positive political declaration of intent to the victims"
The marginal presentation of the conflicts between the two German states with Israel in the 1970s is not only related to this conceptual orientation. One recognizes in the representations of Wehler, Winkler and Herbert a problem that many different authors have already pointed out. Put simply, there is a confrontation with National Socialism and its crimes in the social histories of the three authors. The chapters on the history of the Nazi regime and its many different crimes are very detailed in all representations. But the stories of the various groups of victims do not appear in them. Insofar as they are present at all, they only occur in connection with the crimes. 48
The problem of dealing with National Socialism without giving space to the voices and claims of its victims was pointed out by Hannah Arendt early after the Shoah. In an exchange of letters from 1946, Arendt criticized her mentor Karl Jaspers and his approach to Nazi crimes, which, in short, did not include Jews. Jaspers spoke about the various dimensions of guilt in his opening lecture at Heidelberg University after the war. The text was later published under the title “The Question of Guilt” 49.
In a detailed criticism, Arendt had agreed to Jaspers’s analysis, but added that something was still missing. Taking responsibility must consist of more than accepting defeat and the consequences that come with it. Such acceptance of responsibility, which is a prerequisite for the continued existence of the people (not the nation), must be combined with a "positive political declaration of intent to the victims," she said. Of course, this should not mean that one tries to make up where there is nothing more to make up; but that one z. B. the ´displaced persons` say: “We understand very well that you want to get out and to Palestine; Apart from that, however, you should know that you have all rights here, that you can count on our full help, that in a future German republic we will constitutionally determine our departure from anti-Semitism in memory of what happened to the Jewish people through Germans such that every Jew, regardless of where he was born, can become an equal citizen of this republic at any time if he wants, and solely on the basis of his Jewish nationality, without having to cease to be a Jew. ”50
Hannah Arendt complained to Jaspers that in his book on the various dimensions of guilt he did not deal with what the victims of National Socialism especially needed after the end of the war and the Shoah. It is precisely these objections that Arendt raised to Jaspers that can be made against the representations of Wehler, Winkler and Herbert. Parts of the history of the confrontation between the two German states and the crimes of National Socialism are present in their depictions, but the fate of the many groups of those murdered and survivors and their situation after the Shoah are omitted.
This disappearance of the victims of German politics from the presentation or their reduction to a victim role applies to the three authors both for the description of the empire and for all subsequent periods of German history. The stories and experiences of the Jews in Germany, but also of the Poles, Russians, French and many other people from other societies and from other continents in Germany are not told here. 51
6. Inge Deutschkron: "Israel and the Germans"
Because in the books of the three historians presented the presentation of the confrontation with National Socialism in both German states is told largely without recourse to the victims and their stories, the three historians overlooked a work that had long since shocked Israel in the 1970s, the new one Middle East policy of the social-liberal federal governments, the support of the Arab countries by the GDR and much more had analyzed in all breadth and with many details. It is the book by the journalist and Holocaust survivor Inge Deutschkron with the title “Israel and the Germans”, which is now available in three revised editions.52
The last edition so far appeared in 1991, at a time when the three historians presented had only just begun to work out their accounts of the history of Germany. With a clear view of the development of the two German states after National Socialism, the emergence and development of Israel and the development of the relationships and conflicts between them, it also provides a good overview of the various advances and setbacks in the confrontation with National Socialism. Your presentation makes it very clear that there is a straight line development towards an increasingly broadly anchored learning process in society, the recognition of crimes, the compensation of the victims, the attempt at reconciliation with the victims and the truthful speech about National Socialism, racism and anti-Semitism does not exist in either German company.
On the contrary, attempts to reverse and reverse the progress already made in this development process have not ceased. These attempts came and still come from two political camps in particular. Both cooperated with various factions of Palestinian terrorists in the 1970s. A broad current that wanted to destroy Israel has developed from both the left-wing political camp in Germany and the right-wing political spectrum.
6.1. Anti-guilt anti-Semitism
The development towards an explicit hostility towards Israel from the left political spectrum could have been received by the three historians if, in addition to Deutschkron's excellent work, they had picked up a book that was also already available in its first edition when they were with theirs Work was only just beginning. It is the work of Martin Kloke with the title "Israel and the German Left", in which the emergence of an anti-Zionist German left from the disintegration of the student association SDS is meticulously traced.53
The historical lynchpin of this development is the 6-day war in 1967. After its end, the SDS passed a resolution in September as a further working basis, with which it overturned its pro-Israeli policy up to that point.54 According to After the disintegration of the SDS at the end of the 1960s, this anti-Zionism was adopted by the communist sects of the SDS. The three armed left terrorist formations, whose history and development have already been presented and analyzed in various representations, also emerged from the environment of the collapsing SDS
The psychological linchpin for this direction is a phenomenon that is now often called "left anti-Semitism". I prefer the term “anti-guilt anti-Semitism” as it was developed by employees of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in the 1950s.56 Many of the activists of left German groups in the 1970s articulated a defense against guilt that contained essentially the same phrases as the anti-Zionist jargon many Arabs.57 Israel's policy was equated with that of Germany under Hitler in order to be able to justify the destruction of Israel.
6.2. Racism and anti-semitism
The other political camp that gave rise to groups that revived anti-Semitism and contributed to the war against Israel worked towards the annihilation of Israel is the traditionally right-wing one. With the ban on the NSDAP by the Allies and the ban on the Socialist Reich Party At the beginning of the 1950s, National Socialist structures and aid organizations for their former cadres in the Federal Republic and the GDR had not disappeared. 58
In the environment of the wintering National Socialist structures there had always been terrorist activities and networks, the development of which, however, has not yet been fully described.59 At the beginning of the 1970s, right-wing terrorist structures emerged from the environment of the NPD like RAF, Revolutionary cells and Movement June 2nd, cooperated with armed Palestinian formations. Several of their activists have now made their terrorist activities public.60
One of these neo-Nazis at the time, Willi Voss, now an author of detective novels, described in his memoirs how Abu Ijad - head of the security services in the PLO and thus one of the main organizers of Palestinian terror in Western Europe - explained what happened to him in 1972 he expects to work with supporters from the Federal Republic. “He was of the opinion,” noted Voss, “that there should be something to think about, that after two heavy wars after the founding of the state, Zionist Israel was still in a position to deal with the grueling 'war of attrition' of the Egyptians, which he did little found effective, with (...) the guerrilla war of the Palestinian commandos neutralized large forces that were lacking in the national economy. He saw the sole reason for the resistance and perseverance in the ´morality` of the Israelis, which was upheld by the more or less open guarantees of the western states, especially the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany. The morale of the Israelis is still intact because the connections to the supply suppliers of the western world are intact. If it were possible - on the one hand - to disrupt these supply lines and, on the other hand, to ´objective´ public opinion in the western world, which means “to approach the problem”, then Zionism would be overthrown and the Palestinian demand for a state of its own would be fulfilled only a matter of time. ”61
Psychologically, it is not difficult to identify the pivotal point for this right-wing camp of German enemies of Israel in the 1960s. They just continue the anti-Semitism and hatred of their ancestors.
In addition to these two larger political camps, out of which terrorist structures developed in the 1970s, which took part in the war against Israel from the Federal Republic, there was a third connection, which has not yet been really well described. Martin Kloke, Jeffrey Herf and Wolfgang Kraushaar have pointed out this connection in their publications. 62
Since the late 1960s, representatives of the have played in organizing political terrorism Fatah an important role in the Federal Republic of Germany. This was first noticed publicly when the Ambassador of Israel, Asher Ben Natan, set out on a lecture tour in the Federal Republic of Germany in the summer of 1969. He gave lectures in Frankfurt, Hamburg, West Berlin, Nuremberg, Cologne and Munich. Asher Ben Nathan did not even have a say in some of these lectures.
During almost all of these lectures the ambassador was received by students chanting slogans such as: B. "Zionism is Fascism". At some of these lecture events, representatives of the SDS and Arab groups try to assert themselves with physical violence. The representative of the PLO in the Federal Republic, Abdallah Frangi, already played an important role. In his memoirs, he leaves no doubt that he had military training and, after the 6-day war, was involved in deployments of the Fatah was involved in Jordan and West Jordan. For the Federal Republic of Germany, however, he rejects any involvement in terrorist activities.63
With the expulsion of various representatives of the Fatah In the wake of the attack on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich in 1972, these structures were restricted in their ability to act. However, since the GDR accepted the expellees and Franghi had been operating again in the Federal Republic since 1974, the ability of these Palestinian structures to act in the Federal Republic was probably more influential than has been researched to date.
The psychological linchpin of their policy was entirely that of the PLO in the Middle East itself. They sought to humiliate Israel and Israelis by equating Israel's policy with that of the German Nazis, from which many Israelis had only just escaped. This was the only way for them to legitimize their intention to destroy Israel. Like the left-wing Jew-haters, they refused to follow in the footsteps of anti-Semites. They argued anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic.64 However, they have not taken back the threat of extermination against Israel and still do not take it back to this day.
Unwrapping history means understanding the background. Unwrapping History is aimed at modern people who want to explore Berlin, Potsdam and German history. We speak German and English.
• Basic tours to the most important places of thought in German history,
• the development of theme-oriented special tours for groups of all kinds
• and individually designed luxury programs for adventure seekers.
7. Federal Republic of Germany: "... particularly affected"?
Similar to journalism, contemporary historiography has the task of making the citizens of democratic societies aware of the dangers that their societies have mastered and not mastered. Her works form one of the foundations from which readers sharpen their judgment and politicians make decisions. As was demonstrated by the works of three authors presented, German contemporary historiography does not adequately comply with this.
German contemporary historiography neglected the conflicts between the two German states with Israel and the cooperation of left and right German terrorists with armed formations of the Palestinians not simply because it did not pursue the anti-modern political movements in German society as vigorously as necessary and because it neglected the history of the many different groups of victims of National Socialism. It also did something that can be seen as a reproduction of contemporary misjudgments. With their representations, the historians reproduce a shortened understanding of terrorism that was presented by politicians of the Brandt / Schmidt era themselves.
German left and right-wing terrorism was viewed under the Brandt and Schmidt governments as essentially a threat to the Federal Republic and its representatives. According to the assessment at the time, this terror was primarily about questioning the reputation of the Federal Republic and its progress in developing into a pillar of the democratic West.That this terror first and foremost applied to the USA and Israel and also affected them, and that it applied only secondarily to the Federal Republic of Germany and its representatives, inasmuch as they were allies of the USA and Israel, was not really noticed at the time.
7.1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
One of the important indications for this state of German politics in the era of Brandt and Schmidt is to be quoted here from a document from the Foreign Office. It is an analysis by a ministerial director of September 14, 1976, which was easily accessible and published in the annual volume of the files of the Foreign Office from 1976.65 The ministerial director wrote at that time, just a few weeks after the hijacking of an Air France plane to Entebbe in Uganda, a situation analysis.
“The Federal Republic,” he puts it, “is particularly affected by terrorism in terms of foreign and domestic policy. Germans are quantitatively disproportionately represented as perpetrators in international terrorism, and they are particularly dangerous. This fact arouses historical associations. It hardly touches healed wounds and thereby disrupts our reconciliation policy. "
The employee of the Foreign Office then goes on to say that the involvement of German terrorists brings the Federal Republic “in the event of the consequences (e.g. extradition requests) into acute conflicts of interest with third parties, e.g. B. with friendly governments and peoples. These conflicts "are often exacerbated by the mutual upsurge of the mass media, and even driven to the point of escalation of government measures (...). The left “is able to generate a wave of indignation against all anti-terrorism measures of the federal government due to its disciplined approach. The historical reminiscences "ensured a" broad followers. "
These “measures by the federal government” would be “interpreted by interested parties as 'repression'. "This propaganda is matched by the visual impression that can also be captured in the picture: scuffle at demonstrations, protective posts in front of ministries," police tanks "to protect foreign embassies, difficult access to (...) embassies abroad. The image of the 'open society' "is" blurred as a result. "
The State Secretary then commented on the fact that “all sorts of unauthorized persons” expressed concern about the state of democracy. The liberal penal system in the Federal Republic is being discredited. The “untruthful” representations also made it easier for international terrorism to recruit new “convicts” over and over again. It seems as if the "vicious circle (terrorism - resistance of the state - terrorism against this resistance)" is difficult to interrupt. One does not need to support the conspiracy theory that this terrorism was invented by the Warsaw Pact states to understand that it served the purposes of these states.
Put somewhat simply, this situation report, produced on September 14, 1976, saw the problem of German left-wing and right-wing terrorism and its cooperation with the Palestinian war against Israel primarily in the fact that the good reputation of the Federal Republic was damaged. The victims of this terror, the Israeli and Arab civilians, the members of the government of Arab states who were interested in a negotiated peace with Israel, the American soldiers and government officials, among others, did not really appear in this description.
7.2. Gideon Hausner
These abbreviations and reversals of the situation report from the Foreign Office of September 14, 1976 can also be seen so clearly because on the same day that the situation report was completed in the Foreign Office, on September 14, 1976, Gideon Hausner, Minister Without a special area of responsibility in the government of Israel, lawyer and prosecutor in the proceedings against Adolf Eichmann, addressed a letter to the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic, Hans Dietrich Genscher. 66
With this letter, Hausner sent Genscher a paper that he had given to the "International Congress of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists" on August 25, 1976 in Jerusalem. If you put Hausner's letter and the situation analysis from the Foreign Office next to each other, then you understand very well what the different assessments of international terrorism by the German and Israeli governments consisted of at the time.
In Hausner's lecture, it is pointed out that responsible scientists and political leaders must realize that we live in a complex world in which Nazi terror and Stalinist crimes have found new students. This new world is a world of ruthless and unprincipled social revolutions, drastic upheavals in cultures and destructive political conflicts that destroy established values and have brought about the idealization of unbridled violence. Devious acts would find enthusiastic defenders and admirers in this world.
The murders of children in Maalot67, the mass murder at Lod68 airport and the murder of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics in Munich had been publicly praised by the governments of many Arab countries. The terrorist organizations that participated in these attacks have developed into a kind of establishment that is financed, run and maintained by Arab authorities. The threat of this terror has spread like a tumor and has metastatically grown. Not for the first time his Jews became the first victims of barbarism, other victims quickly followed. There is ample evidence of the existence of an international terrorist network, the main components of which are the P. L.O., the Baader Meinhof Group, the Japanese Red Army, Turkish terrorist groups and extreme left groups from across Europe. They would all preach revolutionary Marxism and, especially in Western Europe and South America, attempt to undermine the everyday life of Western democracies.
The PLO and its branch, the PFLP, together with Arab countries and some of their diplomats, are central factors in the planning and financing of this network, the supply of weapons and forged papers. Sometimes their attacks hit “imperialist” targets such as B. gas and oil companies in Holland or Singapore, the Japanese embassy in Kuwait, newspaper offices in France, the oil ministers of the OPEC countries in Vienna or a factory in Mannheim. Of course you never forget goals in Israel, they are the main goals. Today, in contrast to the 19th century, when anarchist terrorism was despised almost everywhere, the situation is completely different. Today there are also supporters of terror who have a place and a voice on the UN Security Council.69
In contrast to the situation report by the Federal Foreign Office, Gideon Hausner's presentation named the victims of the international terrorist network clearly and precisely. Nor did he withhold the political intentions of this network. The cooperation of the Palestinians with right and left terrorist formations all over the world was aimed primarily at Israel, but also to a greater extent at the western democracies in general. The Federal Republic of Germany and its damaged reputation abroad was by no means the central goal of the international terror network.
8. Open secrets
The shock of Israeli society over a German foreign policy that supported the war of Arab countries and Palestinian terrorists against Israel in the case of the GDR and proclaimed neutrality in the case of the Federal Republic and thus did not give the only democracy in the Middle East the protection it needed, can only to be considered too understandable. It had to be reinforced by the fact that people living in the Federal Republic of Germany Fatah-Members as well as German left and right-wing terrorists took part in the war against Israel.
In addition, an anti-Zionist-anti-Semitic discourse began to establish itself in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s, which turned the situation on its head. He discredited Israel as fascist and glorified its enemies as upright resistance fighters against colonial oppression and imperial rule. This discourse and the participation of German left and right-wing terrorists in the war against Israel were possible because, contrary to what current German historiography explains, the coming to terms with National Socialism in German society had not taken root as broadly as hoped.
Anti-Semitism and racism, albeit partly in a transformed form, still had, or perhaps better said, had a considerable influence in Germany in the 1970s. Even then, this was an “open secret”. Not all details of this development have been well researched. The accumulated knowledge, however, is sufficient to clearly state that the memory in Israel does justice to these developments in the 1970s than the memory of them in the Federal Republic of Germany.70
Historical research and political science cannot and cannot negate this character of German society, which then as now still fights over the coming to terms with National Socialism, the punishment of the perpetrators, the compensation of the victims, the continued existence of racism and anti-Semitism. With all the necessary objectivity and balance, historians also have an obligation to resist and oppose conditions, policies and conceptions that mean genocide, relapse into pre-democratic times and the abolition of rational thought.
The contemporary historiography of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is accompanied by many gaps and which has been reproduced here using three examples, extends the poor understanding of the significance of international terrorism in the 1970s with its representations. This lack of understanding was one of the reasons for a mistake in West German foreign policy in the 1970s. Contrary to what was necessary at the time, Israel did not receive the support from the Federal Republic of Germany that it should have received. This is true not only because there are “special relationships” between the two states, but also because democratic societies, whenever one of them is particularly challenged, have to defend themselves together. The challenge posed by international terrorism, which presented itself publicly and internationally with “Entebbe” and “Mogadishu”, was such a case.
The present Federal Republic cannot be compared with the 1970s. The Chancellor of the United Federal Republic of Germany, Angela Merkel, declared in front of the Israeli parliament on March 18, 2008 that neutrality was not the guideline for Germany's foreign policy in the Middle East, but Israel's security.
There is currently no left-wing terrorism, but there is still an anti-Semitic-anti-Zionist discourse supported in parts of society. What is much more visible than in the 1970s is a broadly supported right-wing populism that also has terrorist arms. They are not called that by the police and politics in the Federal Republic of Germany, but they cannot escape any attentive newspaper reader. They form the "open secret" of the current situation in the Federal Republic. More than 1,800 attacks on refugees and their accommodations this year alone and election results of up to 24 percent for the right-wing populist AfD in some federal states speak for themselves.
How significant and widespread the danger of terrorist structures in the Federal Republic relate to political Islam and how great their influence is among immigrants and refugees who come to the Federal Republic from Arab countries or who have come a long time is hotly debated. Controversial because some warnings about the dangers of Islamism and terrorist networks that invoke political Islam have become part of even racist propaganda against Muslims in Europe.
Of course there is nothing to gloss over. The attacks in Paris, Brussels, Würzburg and Nice speak a clear language. The threat to Israel and the democratic world from Islamism and Islamist terror is immense. ISIS, the state of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, leave no doubt that their goal is the destruction of Israel and the democracies of the West. The Federal Government should not repeat the mistake of the Social Democratic Chancellor in the 1970s, who saw the terror primarily directed against the Federal Republic. The Islamist attacks in Europe and elsewhere are merely the accompaniment to wars that Islamist terrorists are waging in many parts of the world.
1 Cf.: Jürgen Habermas: Citizenship and National Identity, in: (ders.): Facticity and validity, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag 1992.
2 Cf. Jeffrey Herf, Undeclared Wars with Israel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, pp. 338ff.
3 Quoted from: Communiqué Kofr Kaddum, Frankfurter Rundschau dated October 15, 1977.
4 Cf. on the various motives of internationally networked terrorism in the 1970s and still pioneering afterwards: Walter Laqueur, War against the West, Berlin: Ullstein Verlag 2004.
5 Cf. in particular: Jeffrey Herf, Undeclared Wars with Israel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016.
6 Quoted from: Jenny Hestermann, Staged Reconciliation, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag 2016, p. 266.
7 Cf. Inge Deutschkrons groundbreaking book: Inge Deutschkron, Israel und die Deutschen, Köln: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik 1991 (3rd revised edition).
8 The Holocaust survivor Inge Deutschkron did not return to Berlin until the 1980s. See: Inge Deutschkron, entry in FemBio (Women Biography Research) (http://www.fembio.org/biographie.php/frau/biographie/inge-deutschkron/ - accessed on November 4, 2016)
9 See: Arabs celebrate kidnapping as a victory, Frankfurter Rundschau dated October 31, 1972.
10 Those from the disintegration of the Socialist German Student Union emerging, especially Maoist organizations, all orientated themselves towards anti-Zionism. See: Martin Kloke, Israel and the German Left, Frankfurt: Haag and Herchen Verlag 1990 (2nd edition 1994); Jens Benicke, Von Adorno zu Mao, Freiburg: Ca Ira Verlag 2010; Wolfgang Kraushaar, “When will the fight against the holy cow Israel finally begin?”, Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag 2013.
11 Hans-Ulrich Wehler, German History of Society 1700 - 1990, 5 volumes. Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag, 1987 - 2008.
12 Ulrich Herbert, History of Germany in the 20th Century, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag, 2014.
13 Heinrich August Winkler, The long way to the west (2nd volumes), Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2000. See also: Heinrich August Winkler, Geschichte des Westens, 4 volumes, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2009-2015.
14 Hans-Ulrich Wehler, German history of society 1700 - 1990, 5 volumes, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 1987 - 2008, volume 5, p. 316ff.
15 See on this: Bernhard Rabert, Left and Right Terrorism in the Federal Republic of Germany from 1970 to today, Bonn: Bernard & Graefe Verlag 1995. See also: Anton Maegerle, Heribert Schiedel, Krude Allianz, Das Arab-Islamistische Bündnis mit Deutschen und Austrian right-wing extremists, Vienna: Manuscript 2001 (http://www.doew.at/cms/download/b3cc7/re_maegerle_schiedel_allianz.pdf - accessed on December 2, 2016). See also: Samuel Salzborn, The Stasi and West German Right-Wing Terrorism. Three case studies (Part I). In: Germany Archive, April 15, 2016 (Link: www.bpb.de/224836); ders., The Stasi and West German right-wing terrorism. Three case studies (Part II). In: Germany Archive, April 19, 2016 (Link: www.bpb.de/224934).
16 Cf.: Hans-Ulrich Wehler, German history of society 1700 - 1990, 5 volumes, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 1987 - 2008, volume 5, pp. 297f.
17 Quoted from: Ibid., P. 320.
18 See: Ibid., Pp. 349/50.
19 See: Jeffrey Herf, Undeclared Wars with Israel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016.
20 See: Hans-Ulrich Wehler, German history of society 1700 - 1990, 5 volumes, Munich: Beck-Verlag 1987 - 2008, volume 5, p. 29ff.
21 See: Ibid., Pp. 253ff.
22 Cf.: Heinrich August Winkler, Der long Weg nach Westen (2nd volumes), Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2000.
23 Cf .: Ibid., Volume 2, pp. 344ff.
24 Cf. Ibid., P. 345. In the much more recent account of Winkler, the four-volume history of the West, terrorism is mentioned in much more detail in the context of “Entebbe” and “Mogadishu” (Heinrich August Winkler, Geschichte des Westens, volume 3, From the Cold War to the Fall of the Wall, Munich: CH Beck Verlag 2014, pp. 750ff.) But here, too, systematic cooperation between Palestinian and German left-wing and right-wing terrorists is either not mentioned at all, or only in passing.
25 Quoted from: Heinrich August Winkler, Der long Weg nach Westen, Volume 2, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2000, p. 348.In Winkler's History of the West, the author literally uses the same formulation (Heinrich August Winkler, Geschichte des Westens, Volume 3, From the Cold War to the Fall of the Wall, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2014, p. 755.).
26 See: Heinrich August Winkler, Der long Weg nach Westen, Volume 2, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2000, pp. 116ff. In the history of the West by Winkler mentioned above, the development of an anti-Israel policy in the GDR is briefly mentioned (Heinrich August Winkler, Geschichte des Westens, Volume 3, From the Cold War to the Fall of the Wall, Munich: CH Beck Verlag 2014, p. 163ff.), the massive anti-Israel policy of the GDR in the wake of the 6-day war, however, not at all (Heinrich August Winkler, Geschichte des Westens, Volume 3, From the Cold War to the Fall of the Wall, Munich: CH Beck Verlag 2014, p. 600ff.)
27 See: Heinrich August Winkler, The long way to the west, Volume 2, Munich: CH Beck Verlag 2000, p. 524. In Winkler's much more extensive “History of the West”, the foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany towards Israel is now and then striped, there is no separate chapter on this. The presentation of the history of Israel and its politics in Winkler's “History of the West” would be worth a very special discussion, which cannot be dealt with here. It should be noted, however, that there is no separate chapter on Israel's politics and history in the four-volume work. The Federal Republic, the USA, France, Great Britain and others. are represented with their own representations, Israel is not. Wherever Israel occurs, the representation is highly problematic. This begins with the mention of the founding of Israel and the War of Independence in 1948. There, Winkler formulates, with expressly positive reference to the controversial historian Ilan Pappe, of "planned ´ethnic cleansing" ". (Quoted from: Heinrich August Winkler, Geschichte des Westens, Volume 3, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2014, p. 87.)
28 Ulrich Herbert, History of Germany in the 20th Century, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2014.
29 Cf .: Ibid., Pp. 923ff.
30 Quoted from: Ulrich Herbert, Geschichte Deutschlands im 20. Jahrhundert, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2014, p. 923.
31 Quoted from: Ibid., P. 929. Herbert's last remark is not entirely correct. During the kidnapping of the employer president Hanns Martin Schleyer and the Lufthansa machine, there was an "undeclared state of emergency" (Wolfgang Kraushaar, The state of emergency not declared, in: ders. (Ed.), The RAF and the left terrorism, Hamburg: Hamburger Edition 2006, Volume 2, p. 1011ff.), As Wolfgang Kraushaar has mentioned, in which a large and small crisis team not provided for in the constitution acted largely without parliamentary control, had in fact introduced press censorship and the rights of political prisoners to visit defense lawyers and other people a so-called "contact blocking law" were suspended.
32 See: Ulrich Herbert, Geschichte Deutschlands im 20. Jahrhundert, Munich: Beck Velag 2014, pp. 708/709.
33 See: Meir Litvak, Esther Webman, From Empathy to Denial. Arab Responses to the Holocaust, London: Hurst & Company, 2009.
34 These statements by Nasser are just one of many different examples. See the description by Inge Deutschkron (Israel and the Germans, Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik 1991) and the publication by Meir Litvak and Esther Webman (From Empathy to Denial, London: Hurst & Company 2009).
35 Quoted from: “You can't let yourself be blackmailed forever”, The mirror of February 24, 1965, p. 36.
36 Quoted from: Gerhard Frey, "War with Israel inevitable", German National Newspaper and Soldiers' Newspaper from May 1, 1964, p. 3, reproduced in: Gilbert Achcar, Die Araber und der Holocaust, Hamburg: Nautilus 2012, p. 207.
37 Quoted from: Ibid.
38 See in particular: Jeffrey Herf, Undeclared Wars with Israel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, pp. 119ff.
39 See: Inge Deutschkron, Israel and the Germans, Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik 1991, p. 64.
40 See: ibid.
41 See: Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984. See also: Jeffrey Herf (Ed.), Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective, London: Routledge 2007.
42 See: Samuel Salzborn, Antisemitism as a negative central idea of modernity, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2010, especially p. 317ff.
43 See the first edition of the book: Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, hectographed manuscript 1944 (on the occasion of the 50th birthday of Friedrich Pollock). A plea for historiography and political science that would support anti-modern movements such as racism, anti-Semitism and others. Should not only place more at the center of historical and political analyzes in German society, can be found in: Richard Herzinger, Hannes Stein, Endzeit-Propheten - or: Die Offensive der Antiwestler, Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag 1995. Jeffrey Herf (Ed. ), Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective, London: Routledge 2007. See also: Samuel Salzborn, Kampf der Ideen, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft 2015.
44 At this point, I expressly agree to Anetta Kahane, the founder and chairwoman of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in Berlin, who, when presenting an exhibition on Racism, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism in both German states near 1945, declared that there were many topics in post-war history , up to the development of cuckoo clocks and Christmas trees, representations are available, but only a few representations of the presence of anti-Semitism, right-wing extremism and racism in both German societies after the Shoah. This is particularly true of the communist GDR. (See: Martin Jander, Heilsames Gegengift against frivolous pride in coming to terms with it, haGalil of August 20, 2012. (http://www.hagalil.com/2012/08/germany-after-1945))
45 Cf. Heinrich August Winkler, Forever in Hitler's shadow? To the dispute about the historical image of the Germans, Frankfurter Rundschau from November 14, 1986. Hans Ulrich Wehler, Disposal of the German Past ?, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 1988. Ulrich Herbert, Der Historikerstreit. Political, scientific, biographical aspects, in: Martin Sabrow et al. (Ed.), Contemporary history as a history of controversy, Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag 2003, p. 94ff.
46 See: Ernst Nolte, past that does not want to pass, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dated June 6, 1986.
47 Quoted from: Heinrich August Winkler, Hellas instead of Holocaust, in: The time dated July 21, 2011.
48 The omissions of many German historians in the context of the history of National Socialism have already been the subject of a major account by the historian Nikolaus Berg: Nicolas Berg, Der Holocaust und die Westdeutschen Historiker, Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag 2003. Only recently is the same phenomenon in a German dispute with Nazism without Jews has also been treated for German fiction after 1945: Agnes C. Mueller, The Inability to Love - Jews, Gender, and America in Recent German Literature, Evanston: Northwestern University Press 2015.
49 See: Karl Jaspers, Die Schuldfrage, Munich: Piper Verlag 2012 (1st edition 1946).
50 Quoted from: Lotte Köhler, Hans Saner (eds.), Hannah Arendt, Karl Jaspers Briefwechsel 1926 - 1969, Munich and Zurich: Piper Verlag 1985, p. 88.
51 The omissions of many German historians in the context of the history of National Socialism have also become the subject of a heated controversy between the historians Martin Broszat and Saul Friedländer. See: Martin Broszat, Saul Friedländer, To the “Historicization of National Socialism” - A letter exchange, in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, issue 2/1988, 36th year, p. 339ff.
52 Inge Deutschkron, Israel and the Germans, Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik 1991 (1st edition 1970, 2nd edition 1983).
53 See: Martin Kloke, Israel and the German Left, Frankfurt: HAAG and HERCHEN Verlag 1990 (2nd edition 1994).
- What makes Indian engineers the best
- Would you let people underestimate you?
- Who did you help today 1
- How do free newspapers make money
- How do scallops look without a brain
- Why don't most parents like Death Metal?
- The dreams of the deaf are mute
- What are MRP price and LP price
- What is the Chinese language market
- Why don't the foreigners still imagine China?
- What is the remedy for vaginal itching
- Why don't people save
- Coach purses are made in China
- How broken is our Fiat currency system
- Can you really achieve work-life balance
- What is the past tense of born
- Are airsoft guns kid-friendly
- Is there a country like China
- What is the staple food of Australians
- How does a Moldovan accent sound?
- How's your sunday afternoon
- Would you let people underestimate you?
- Why do disabled people infantilize disabled people
- Do the Poles look like Germans?
- What is the best food festival
- Can a 14 year old love know
- What do boys and girls never tell
- Which bank offers the best interest rates
- Which countries have some unusual city names?
- Which countries have banned single-use plastics?
- How much does a CFO earn
- Who was Joshua's father in the bible
- Put eggs in pancake mixture
- Why do guys want to hold hands