|
|
Articles in English
Joint Distribution Committee: "Grandpa's Safe Haven" A Conversation with Arianna Huffington A Conversation with Helen Thomas Yasser Arafat—Legacy or Lunacy? The Israeli Press Reacts to the Road Map: Bumpy Road Ahead The Israeli Press Reacts to the Prisoner Exchange with Hizbollah Israel’s Security Fence—Back To The Wall A Woman President in the White House? New
York Stories: New
York Stories: German
Press on Iraq: Jewish Lawyers Defending Anti-Semites? Cooperation
and Competition — American Jewry and Israel's Development 2000... And the Emperor Still Has No Clothes
The World Press on:
People Making Headlines in...
German Media: Abendzeitung Art Berliner
Morgenpost Berliner
Zeitung Bild
der Wissenschaft Bild
Zeitung Börsen-Zeitung Der
Spiegel Der
Tagesspiegel Deutsche
Presse-Agentur Die
Tageszeitung Die
Welt Die
Zeit Focus Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung Frankfurter
Neue Presse Frankfurter
Rundschau Freitag General-Anzeiger Hamburger
Morgenpost Handelsblatt Hannoversche
Allgemeine Kieler
Nachrichten Kölner
Stadt-Anzeiger Leipziger
Volkszeitung Literaturen Münchner
Merkur Neue
Ruhr Zeitung Neues
Deutschland Rheinische
Post Rheinischer
Merkur Rhein-Zeitung Saarbrücker
Zeitung Stuttgarter
Nachrichten Stuttgarter
Zeitung Süddeutsche
Zeitung Tip Welt
am Sonntag Westdeutsche
Allgemeine Westfälische
Rundschau Wirtschaftswoche Wochenpost Zitty
| Home Page > Articles in English > Front Line Berlin
The
German Press On the War with Iraq
One year later, however, German papers referred to the quagmire in Iraq as "Bush's Vietnam" (see Der Spiegel's cover of April 19, 2004 at right) and published gruesome pictures of American and Iraqi casualties. At the beginning of the war, most German papers provided a balanced picture and gave voice to different opinions, however, they didn't shy away from acid, sarcastic opinion pieces. All of the web sites of the papers gave space to the antiwar protest, some in form of picture galleries or "pictures of the day.” Germans believed that they had a right to speak out against the war because that's what the United States had envisioned for Germany all along after WW II: to become a democratic, independent country, thinking for itself while fostering peace and reconciliation. Eight days into the war, German papers still gave a lot of background info about the fighting and military strategies, but the stories about troop movements were replaced by accounts about the death of Iraqi civilians and allied soldiers, the lack of food and water, the daily hardship of the people in Baghdad, the distribution of humanitarian aid, and the antiwar movements in Germany and the United States. In addition, the media reflected on how the war had affected Germany directly, and the papers shifted to domestic issues that surfaced because of the war. But the war had had also
the opposite effect: It had moved the attention from Chancellor Gerhard Schröder
and his controversial economic policies and domestic social reforms, which, before
the start of the war, made all the headlines.
The Information Barrage Begins
Die Welt (conservative daily, Berlin): "Iraq War," a pop-up window, including maps, timelines, and news.Die Zeit (liberal weekly, Hamburg): "Iraq Conflict," maps and extensive links and a press review, polls, discussion forums and archived material from the paper. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (conservative daily, Frankfurt): "War in Iraq," also with timelines, maps, updated reporting on troop movements, pictures. Frankfurter Rundschau (FR, liberal daily, Frankfurt)): "War Against Iraq," the paper published a supplement on the war on 3/12/03. It gave more comments and was a bit more critical in its opinions. In the introduction to its special war coverage on the web, FR was the only paper that had placed a disclaimer, saying that all reporting passed the censor of the parties involved in the conflict. "We ask our readers to bear this in mind while reading the articles." Der Spiegel (liberal newsmagazine, Hamburg): "Attack on Saddam," gave maps, background, timeline, reports etc. and featured also an Arabic press overview" on its site. A special edition of the magazine devoted 70 (!) pages to its lead package on the war, headlined "Bombing Terror for Freedom. The American Attack on Iraq " The web site offered an English version, with summaries of the stories featured in the magazine on the war: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,241644,00.html Stern (liberal newsmagazine, Hamburg): "War in the Gulf," had more sarcastic and critical comments on the war. The main story of Stern's special package on the war was a commentary: "...George W. Bush sleeps peacefully and is never in doubt. Why shouldn't he be? The U.S. president—a former drinker and happy-go-lucky—believes he fulfills a higher mission with his 'fight against evil.' " The site gave extensive background, maps, timelines, and a forum "Is this war against international humanitarian law?" where angry readers could voice their opinion. Die Tageszeitung (taz, left-wing daily, Berlin) was the only paper openly declaring its opposition to the war, to the point of boycotting its coverage. Its web site featured no special section on the war, besides a few news reports and short comments. On its homepage it had a link in red "No War With Iraq," and new subscribers or subscribers who renewed their subscription received the book "Iraq, choice of a wanted war. How the world was manipulated and international law was broken" by taz-correspondent (!) Andreas Zumach. Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ, centrist daily, Munich): "War in Iraq," maps, timeline, forum and a poll: "Is the war against Iraq a just war?" 10,161 (as of 3/27) of its readers answered: 10% - yes; 46% - no; 40% - there is no just war. The lead commentary on SZ's homepage (3/21) was headed: "The Price of War: Why There Can't Be a Clean War."
Quotes of the Day
SZ: by Kurt Kister, headed "Germany and the War": "…Schröder needs to muster the courage for a personal talk with Bush. On the other hand, Germany can't avoid engaging itself in the reshaping of law and order in Iraq after the war as well as involvement in humanitarian aid." taz:
"…Bush and his team are not only hard-line realists but also ardent ideologists.
They believe in their mission: The liberation of the world according to America's
worldview. We will be able to stop U.S. politics in the future. But we need patience."
(3/22/03): Die Welt: "Bush lacks moral leadership strength... The warlord from Washington provides his decisions with an aura of universal significance; before the war, he argued in a placating way, superficially and apparently effectively, citing values such as democracy and human rights. In truth, he wants only one thing: to show who's got the power." Die
Zeit: Tanja Rupprecht-Becker wrote that Germans felt helpless in the face
of the war. But, "everywhere you go in the last few days, there is only one
subject: The war." Handelsblatt (financial daily, Hamburg): Julius Endert
commented that media coverage of the war in Iraq had gotten out of control. An
example cited was the television commentary of a German news channel as Iraqis
tried to kill a downed U.S. pilot in the Tigris. He compared the commentator's
recital of events to a report on a soccer game. "Some journalists sit in
tanks to observe the battles, and seem enthralled by the mission."(3/25/03): Berliner Zeitung (liberal daily, Berlin) defended the country's government against the opposition charge that the threat to withdraw German AWACS crews from Turkey undermines Nato. The Nato treaty, the paper wrote, prohibits the use of force if it is contrary to the will of the U.N. It also argued that since September 11, all members of the transatlantic alliance have been pursuing their own interests and the German government has to do the same. "Its declaration on the AWACS helicopters is in line with the principle that Germany did not want the war in Iraq," the paper argued. "The chancellor has repeatedly hit the wrong note during the Iraq debate, but in essence his position is unambiguous and clear, which cannot be said of the Christian Democrats or the Free Democratic Party."
The
Second Week of the War According
to Süddeutsche Zeitung (3/28), "Whoever destroys, has to
rebuild." The paper urged countries opposed
to the war to resist the temptation to stand aloof from post-conflict reconstruction.
"Such a stance sounds consistent, but would be fatal," it argued. "The
people of 'Saddamistan' must not become the victims of power struggles in
the U.N. Security Council. They have suffered too much." But if the United
States and Britain "are to be helped in dealing with the consequences, they
should not regard this as approval for their actions." America's Naiveté and Military Setbacks The
lead story in the papers on 3/28 was that the United States was forced to increase
its troops and felt the need to implement "Plan B"—which seemed
to prove that the Allies were struggling. Süddeutsche Zeitung ran
the headline (3/28): [The war is] "A Bit Different From How it Looked in
the War Games." But
the financial Handelsblatt (3/27) warned not to put the blame
on the allies just yet for the shift in U.S. military strategy: "Many assessments
on German television are tremendously naïve from a military standpoint. No battle
plan survives the first encounter with the enemy, as experienced generals know.
What is so astounding about the fact that the Americans and the British had to
revise their plans several times in the first days of the war? The same holds
true for allied losses, which had to be expected in a campaign of this size. This
much is certain after the first week: This is a conventional war despite high-tech
U.S. weapons and swift progress on the ground." The
center-right Nordsee-Zeitung of Bremerhaven (3/26), added that "It
is surprising to see the naiveté that the Americans are showing when they expect
to be received with gratefulness by the Iraqis. It is correct that the population
in wide parts of Iraq want to see Saddam go to hell. But the Americans are for
many anything but trustworthy liberators. The
people in southern Iraq have not forgotten that Washington encouraged them to
revolt during the first Gulf War, but then refused to give support." And
Berlin's taz continued to stubbornly ignore the war aside from
occasional, short antiwar comments. The Media And Human Losses In
many papers, graphic reports of civilian casualties were given great prominence,
as well as pictures depicting the suffering of civilians. Most Iraqi and other
Arab claims of Iraqi successes were given as undisputed truths, while American
and British reports of progress were hedged about with such qualifiers as "alleged",
"claimed", and so on. The straight news was larded with a diversity
of comments, as in most European newspapers and magazines. Great emphasis was
placed on the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and although no one said that Saddam
Hussein was a saint, all the blame was laid at the feet of the Allies, who refused
to go the diplomatic way. One reason given that the United States was quick to
resort to war was, according to Germany's Defense Minister Joschka Fischer, was
"they didn't have their own Verdun" [The WW I "Battle
of Verdun" is considered the greatest and lengthiest in world history. It
lasted from Feb. 21, 1916, until Dec.19, 1916, and caused an estimated 700,000
casualties]. An
increasing number of articles scrutinized the role of the media, the embedded
journalists, and the use of graphic footage, after the first "awe" at the
opening bombardment and the intimacy of TV-war reporting faded. One paper, the
Berliner Kurier, a boulevard paper, published a gruesome picture
of a dead Iraqi. The caption pointed to the fact that the editors of Berliner
Kurier debated for a long time whether to published the picture
or not. They decided to do so in order "not to cover up the brutality of
war and to show the whole truth." (The picture, however, was not placed on
Kurier's web site). How Things Have Changed in Germany On
March 28, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush
met at Camp David to discuss the war and the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. German
papers commented on the summit, because the tension between the United States
and Europe—between the "coalition of the willing" and the "axis
of weasel"—and between Britain and the other European countries in particular,
was of concern to the German press. However, according to Die Welt (3/28),
the British prime minister deserved more recognition for his role in trying to
mediate between the United States and Europe. "Where would Europe and the
United Nations be without Tony Blair?" it asked. "Tirelessly, he tries
to prevent the gulf between America and Europe from becoming a chasm. Hardly anyone
in Germany is able to appreciate his efforts. Most see him simply as a warmonger."
To the point that the country was weighting to build up a separate European defense
force, with France—but without Britain. Relationships between Britain and Germany
soured. The
fallout of the war and its immediate effect on Germany's domestic political agenda
was also beginning to make headlines. Angela Merkel, the leader of the
Christian Democratic opposition party, had offered guarded support for U.S. military action against Saddam,
and had criticized the government in its handling
of the war and its antiwar stance. Die Welt rejected the public outcry over Merkel's remarks, by stressing that
"the almost total unanimity between the government and public opinion in
their rejection of war is becoming worrying…. Anybody who falls out of line and
tries to admit that the war of the Americans and British has even a hint of legitimacy
is attacked with hitherto undreamed-of aggression." In this atmosphere, Merkel's
courage in going against majority opinion is to be welcomed, the paper argued.
"It is good that the Christian Democrat leader has not allowed herself to
be moved from a stance, which is 'Atlanticist' and European. It will be needed
even more in future." Süddeutsche
Zeitung,
on the other hand, was unimpressed by Merkel's remarks, dismissing them
as a relic of postwar Germany's unquestioning loyalty toward America. "A
form of 'atlanticism' verging on self-denial was an article of faith for two generations
of German foreign policy-makers," it said. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's
government, the paper believed, finally recognized that times have changed since
the end of the Cold War, and that Germany must pursue its own national interests.
It contrasts this with the Christian Democrats, who were "unable to come
to terms with the emancipation of the country's foreign policy also means that
it must sometimes distance itself from America." In
light of the war and the changing realities in global power distribution, Chancellor
Schröder proposed an increase in the country's defense budget to boost its outdated
Bundeswehr and to rethink its role. The war caused heated discussions on the future
military role that Europe, and especially Germany, Britain, and France, would
soon have to play, because, as Süddeutsche Zeitung put it, "America
Needs a Counterweight." "War
Is Coming to Germany," proclaimed Der Tagesspiegel (3/27).
"The German initial 'no' to the war that has made the coalition so proud,
has had more repercussions than anybody realizes. Whoever says 'no' to American
dominance, must say 'yes' to European responsibility and has to face up to difficult
realities. That won't be possible without soldiers and better equipment."
And, according to Schröder, the aftermath of the war and the reshaping of
global order will have to include a remake of the United Nations. The opposition applied to the Supreme Court to give German soldiers in Turkey more legal backing, but their petition was denied. The German public was vigorously debating if and how German soldiers should be involved in Turkey or in any other military deployments in the future. Now,
months after the war and to the consternation of the Bush administration, Germany
continues to take the liberty to reject military assistance in post-war Iraq.
Home Page > Articles in English > Front Line Berlin |
Even
though most Germans were (and still are) fervently opposed to the war, immediately
following the attack on Iraq, German papers turned to a barrage of reporting
with a lot of background information and facts, paired with less critical commentary
than before the fighting had started. 
All
major papers had a special war section on their web sites and gave their special
reports very different headers:
(3/21/03):
