Thomas Zimmer Profile picture
Oct 1, 2020 21 tweets 4 min read Read on X
I find this question, prompted by @SethCotlar’s criticism of what he rightfully calls the "naïve, American Exceptionalist idea that 'it can’t happen here'," really interesting. A few thoughts from a German perspective. 1/
I’m not necessarily an expert on this topic and have not been following the debate among German conservatives super closely (keeping up with what’s happening on the American side of the Atlantic keeps you pretty busy these days…). So these are really just a few thoughts. 2/
Interestingly, German post-war history has been shaped by almost the reverse exceptionalist idea: "It happened here, so it can always happen again, and it is our responsibility to make sure that it won’t, at least not here." 3/
By the late 1980s, the Federal Republic’s national identity, if there was such a thing, centered around the Nazi period and specifically the Holocaust, and focused on the way West Germany had democratized and accepted the mass crimes as a defining feature of its own history. 4/
A very peculiar kind of national pride had developed, articulated most clearly by the left: "Look how far we’ve come since 1945, look how we have accepted the responsibility that results from our history." A sense not of collective guilt, but responsibility. 5/
To be clear, the exact place of the Holocaust in Germany’s history and collective memory, and the question of whether it should have any relevance for German politics, society, and culture in the present have always been contested. 6/
But by the 1990s an elite consensus around these issues had developed, one that was supported at least by mainstream conservative politicians and elites. No one in the Merkel wing of the conservative party, for instance, would question the centrality of the Holocaust. 7/
Not everyone shares that view, of course. There have always been attempts, particularly on the right, to decenter the Nazi period and the Holocaust – by focusing more on the “good” parts of German history: Goethe maybe, or Frederick the Great if you are so inclined. 8/
Since the Reunification in 1990, the calls for a "normalization" have become louder – as in: The past is the past, and now we’re just a "normal" country. To me, the "normalization" discourse got particularly annoying when Germany hosted the soccer World Cup in 2006. 9/
People were wearing jerseys, waving flags, singing the anthem – all fine; but some pundits got a little too excited: “See how normal we are? Can’t you see?!” As if the normalization fetish itself wasn’t proof that something was not quite “normal.” 10/
The debate over of how "normal" Germany was has always focused on history. In 2012, Cambridge historian Chris Clark published The Sleepwalkers, arguing that we needed to revise our understanding of the German Empire being mainly responsible for the First World War. 11/
In Clark’s interpretation, the major powers were all to blame, as they all “sleepwalked” into the Great War. The book was especially well received in Germany – with certain commentators getting all hyped up about the supposed exoneration of the Empire. 12/
And the debate quickly turned to the present and Germany’s role in the world: Since it was now "proven," some argued, that Germans had not been the big baddies of the past, was it not time to finally step out of history’s shadow and be a "normal" nation? 13/
What do "normal" nations do, you ask? Well, according to this interpretation, they pursue a more "robust" national interest in foreign policy and stop being so "subservient" to the rest of Europe, for instance. 14/
(Interestingly, the "Chris Clark proves we were never the baddies!" crowd conveniently neglected to address the Hitler-sized elephant in the room… but hey, history is hard.) 15/
Unsurprisingly, Germany’s far-right party AfD is full of people who think it’s a crime against the nation to focus on the Holocaust, reject any notion of collective responsibility emanating from German mass crimes, and don’t care about the "don’t let it happen again" part. 16/
Then again, so far, the other parties – including the conservative CDU/CSU – have pledged not to cooperate with the AfD in any way. I dare not make predictions as to how long they will hold that line. But so far, they have. 17/
There are certainly forces within the conservative CDU/CSU and the "liberal" (libertarian/conservative mostly, really) FDP that are open to cooperating with the AfD. But so far, those forces have been kept in check. 18/
One reason why is the fact that the "It happened here, so it can always happen again, and it is our responsibility to make sure that it won’t" mantra is still exerting a strong influence, shaping what is seen as legitimate and what is deemed out of bounds in German politics. 19/
The “exceptionalism,” if we want to call it that, still holds. But again, these are just a few thoughts, and I’d love to hear what others who know more about the German side think. Certainly fascinating to tackle the “Can it happen here?” question comparatively. /end
Addendum: This is an absolutely crucial point, and I completely agree – it is very, very concerning.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Zimmer

Thomas Zimmer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tzimmer_history

Aug 10
Sunday reading: Why the Extremists Took Over on the Right
 
I wrote about the escalating sense of besiegement that has fueled the rise of dangerous people and truly radical ideas that fully define the Right today.
 
This week’s piece (link below): My latest Democracy Americana newsletter: “Why the Extremists Took Over on the Right: Fear of a pluralizing America is fueling a radicalization out of a sense of weakness and besiegement.”
We have been talking a lot - and with good reason - about the “crisis of liberal democracy.” But in crucial ways, it is the conception of “real America” as a white Christian patriarchal homeland that has come under enormous pressure. That’s why the Right is freaking out.
Socially, culturally, and – most importantly, perhaps – demographically, the country has moved away from the rightwing ideal since the middle of the twentieth century. As a result, the conservative hold on power has become tenuous.
Read 9 tweets
Aug 7
Why the Extremists Took Over on the Right
 
Fear of a pluralizing America is fueling a radicalization out of a sense of weakness and besiegement.
 
Some thoughts from my new piece (link below):

🧵 My latest Democracy Americana newsletter: “Why the Extremists Took Over on the Right: Fear of a pluralizing America is fueling a radicalization out of a sense of weakness and besiegement.”
What is America? Who gets to belong? How much democracy, and for whom? Those have always been contested issues. But the fact that this struggle now overlaps so clearly with party lines is the result of a rather recent reconfiguration.
That is the fundamental reality of U.S. politics: National identity and democracy have become partisan issues. This existential dimension of the conflict between Democrats and Republicans overshadows all other considerations, it shapes all areas of U.S. politics.
Read 17 tweets
Apr 14
In the MAGA imagination, America is simultaneously threatened by outsiders – invaders who are “poisoning the blood” of the nation, as Trump has put it – and by the “enemy within.” The core promise of Trumpism is to purge those inherently connected “threats.”

Utterly terrifying.
To the Trumpists, the “enemy within” - those radical “leftists” and “globalists” – are as acutely dangerous as the invaders from without.

In order to restore the nation to former glory, to Make America Great Again, it has as to be “purified” – the enemies have to be purged.
According to the Trumpists, only the providential leader can guide the nation to its re-birth and former glory – “Only I,” Trump loves to say. The rightwing base is all in on this, fiercely loyal to Trump personally, bound to him by a cult of personality.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 31
What does the U.S. look like in five or ten years?
 
I was asked to reflect on this question, alongside other scholars. In a stable democracy, the range of plausible outcomes is narrow. But for America, it now includes complete democratic breakdown.
 
wapo.st/44bN4i6
There should not have been any doubt about the intention of the Trumpists. They desire to erect a form of plebiscitary autocracy, constantly invoking the true “will of the people” while aggressively narrowing the boundaries of who gets to belong and whose rights are recognized.
At every turn, the response to the rise of Trumpism has been hampered by a lack of political imagination – a lingering sense that “It cannot happen here” (or not anymore), fueled by a deep-seated mythology of exceptionalism, progress gospel, and willful historical ignorance.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 16
Sunday reading: What Authoritarianism Means
 
I wrote about why even critical observers underestimated the speed and scope of the Trumpist assault, why they overestimated democratic resilience – about what America is now, and what comes next?
 
New piece (link below) My latest Democracy Americana Newsletter: “What Authoritarianism Means: Even critical observers underestimated the speed and scope of the Trumpist assault, they overestimated democratic resilience. What is America now, and what comes next?”
I take stock of where we are after two months of Trumpist rule, explore that space between (no longer) democracy and full-scale autocracy where America exists now, reflect on what competitive authoritarianism means in theory and practice, and recalibrate my expectations.
I revisit “The Path to Authoritarianism,” a crucial essay Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way published in Foreign Affairs in early February. It captured their expectations at the outset of the Trumpist regime – a powerful warning that has nevertheless been overtaken by events already.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 1
People who claim Zelensky was at fault yesterday and should have been more “diplomatic” or “respectful” are either deliberately propagating the Trumpist attack line – or they fundamentally misunderstand what the Trumpist project is and who is now in power in the United States.
There is this pervasive idea that Trump doesn’t really mean it, has no real position, and can therefore be steered and manipulated by tactical and diplomatic finesse; or maybe he’s just a businessman looking for a great deal. But that’s all irrelevant here.
Trump himself has been very consistent about his preference for foreign autocrats, especially Putin, and his (at best) disinterest and siding with Ukraine and (actually) explicit antagonism towards not only Zelensky, but Europe’s democracies more generally.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(