Grass and Anti-Americanism
By Hendrik Hartenstein

Nobel Prize Laureate Günter Grass recently admitted that as a seventeen-year-old during the final months of World War II, he had been a member of the so called "Waffen-SS" - and not only a "Flakhelfer," as we knew before. Now there is a raging debate; some feel misled, while others are defending his integrity. However, many feel relieved to now see the great moralist being criticized himself for his failings and fallibility.

One can imagine a case where someone older than Grass had believed in the Nazi ideology in the beginning, and had realized his error shortly after, yet "just in time." But with Grass, too young for this, it was different. After the Nazi regime had been annihilating people for eleven years, Grass served in its apparently most successful force for another six months.

And one can imagine a case where someone of Grass' generation had, after the war, not simply referred to his young age, but had dealt with the past in such a way (and thereby morally relativized his own and others' involvement) that it would have been easy to talk about one's membership in the SS. But with Grass, again, the opposite is true. It must have been hard for him to reveal this; someone who had followed the regime in such a way was, in Grass' eyes, guilty. And maybe he did not want to be that guilty.

Grass tells us, in retrospect, that as a prisoner of war he suddenly experienced the racism of a white U.S. soldier towards a black one. His moral arrogance, his contempt and self-exoneration at the expense of the U.S. has characterized his criticism of the "Americanized" Western world ever since.

The Nazis were anti-bourgeois and anti-American, and Grass has remained so until today. In 2001, when terrorists attacked the West, he blamed the West. He strongly opposes the U.S. when it wages war against today's fascists. But he does not simply criticize war; he "desires to not be guilty of it!"

Anti-Americanism is often dismissed in Germany by suggesting that it has "always" existed and that today it is almost irrelevant. But to accept this argument would mean to ignore the links of today's anti-Americanism and - not U.S. foreign policy, but - German history. In Grass' generation there are anti-Americans who follow the same (often petit- or anti-bourgeois) instincts as the Nazis. This generation obeyed the wrong regime and was defeated by a free America. The regime, and especially the SS, offered strong resistance until it was finally overpowered and swept away; Germans did not achieve their political freedom on their own.

In the subsequent generation, there are still many children of Nazis who not only feel dishonor, but who finally want to regain their prestige vis-à-vis the Americans. This generation previously linked its criticism of fascism with its criticism of America in one sentence. It has now learned to put it into two separate sentences.

After the war, the U.S. promoted the democratization of the Federal Republic as well as European integration, they achieved Germany's unification despite the reluctance of its European neighbors, and they finally offered Germany the role of partner in leadership (under Bush Senior) and permanent membership of the UN Security Council (under Clinton). But that was not enough. Or maybe it was too much, and too idealistic. The moral arrogance towards America, held by many Germans, is back and has become more and more visible in recent years - not only, as it always has been, in Grass' comments.

Those who suffered during the war from the bombing of German cities or as refugees must be allowed to write and talk about it without feeling guilty. Grass contributed to this "dealing with the past" with his novel "Crabwalk," which he wrote a few years ago. However, those who have accepted this understanding need not turn against Americans, but must overcome their own cultural restrictions. There is no reason why these experiences should now be used as ammunition against the U.S. (or even Israel) - neither in the form of poor strategic thinking nor in the form of self-righteous moral advice.

It would be great if Germans, including the younger generation, can continue to develop a more "natural" relationship to their country - preferably if they could do so not at the expense of Americans.

.......................................................................................
Hendrik Hartenstein is a former DAAD/AICGS Fellow.

To read the original German version, please click here.

This essay originally appeared in the August 31, 2006 AICGS Advisor.