Table of Contents
- 1 Shortly after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw. Poland is still demanding reparations for the suffering that Germany caused in the Second World War.
- 2 German Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier with his wife Elke Büdenbender in October during a memorial ceremony in Kandanos, Crete.
- 3 Poland demanded 1.3 trillion euros from Germany
- 4 Germany considers the reparations issue to have been resolved
- 5 German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Warsaw in July.
- 6 War opponents became political partners
- 7 Greece and Poland benefit from the EU
- 8 “Elective affinity” with postcolonialism
- 9 * What are the alternative approaches, aside from traditional financial reparations, that could be explored to address the needs and grievances of countries seeking redress for historical injustices within the context of the European Union?
Germany caused great suffering in the Second World War. Greece and Poland are still demanding reparations for this. In Frank Schorkopf’s opinion, this contradicts the basic idea of the European Union.
Shortly after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw. Poland is still demanding reparations for the suffering that Germany caused in the Second World War.
Imago
Germany is considered a country that faces its past. When German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently visited Greece, he also focused on the Wehrmacht’s atrocities.
On the island of Crete he visited the town of Kandanos. In June 1941 it was destroyed by the Wehrmacht in revenge for the resistance of Greek partisans. Steinmeier laid a wreath and said to contemporary witnesses: “I ask for forgiveness for the fact that my country has delayed punishing crimes for decades.”
Germany stands by its historical and moral responsibility, Steinmeier also confirmed at a meeting with Greek President Katerina Sakellaropoulou. But in one matter he remained stubborn. He blocked the question of reparations for war damage. It is concluded under international law.
Greece sees it differently. The demands on Germany amount to a total of 290 billion euros. The country is not alone in this. Poland also believes that the suffering caused by Germany in the Second World War has not yet been completely compensated for. In Warsaw they even demanded 1.3 trillion euros from Germany.
German Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier with his wife Elke Büdenbender in October during a memorial ceremony in Kandanos, Crete.
Imago
Poland demanded 1.3 trillion euros from Germany
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has now made it clear that he wants to approach Germany on the issue. However, he did not completely distance himself from the demands for reparations.
A German international law professor is now opposing this. For him, the claims of Greece and Poland are unjustified. First of all because of the international treaties that were concluded in the post-war period.
Frank Schorkopf from the University of Göttingen argues as follows: After the Second World War, the geopolitical situation in Europe was unstable. Germany was divided; four victorious powers wanted to decide what happened next. They had different interests. But it soon became clear that West Germany would be at the forefront of the looming Cold War.
The voices that wanted to develop West Germany economically now prevailed among the Western Allies. The young Federal Republic should therefore not be burdened with reparations. The issue was therefore postponed at the London Debt Conference in 1953. Representatives of Greece also took part in the negotiations.
Germany considers the reparations issue to have been resolved
After the end of the war, Poland received reparations from the GDR via the Soviet Union. These included machines from East German factories or cargo ships. In 1953, however, Poland renounced further reparations, as did the Soviet Union. This stance was reiterated by subsequent Polish governments.
In 1990, the Federal Republic and the GDR, together with the USA, the Soviet Union, France and Great Britain, finally concluded the Two Plus Four Treaty. He regulated the conditions for German reunification. From a German perspective, this means that all outstanding legal questions relating to the Second World War have been resolved – and thus also the issue of reparations.
In Greece and Poland things are different. From 2015 onwards, the national conservative PiS no longer wanted to know anything about Poland’s previous waiver of reparations. Since then, it has been said in Warsaw that they only acted under pressure from the Soviet Union. The government in Athens, on the other hand, points out that it is not a party to the two-plus-four agreement.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Warsaw in July.
Andrzej Iwanczuk / Imago
War opponents became political partners
From Schorkopf’s point of view, the demands of Poland and Greece and the membership of the two countries in the European Union contradict each other. “Their goal is to shape a common political, perhaps even social, future. In this situation, we can’t pretend that the decades after the war didn’t exist,” he says.
Germany’s relationship with its European neighbors changed in the post-war period. The former war opponents became political partners.
Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Germany joined together in 1951 to form the European Coal and Steel Community. From the beginning, the founders had the goal of reconciling the European states with one another. The centuries of wars in Europe should finally come to an end.
To achieve this goal, the states were prepared to cede part of their sovereignty to the new community. This peculiarity was already known at the time of its founding: “The peace of the world cannot be maintained without creative efforts that correspond to the magnitude of the threat,” said French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman in his speech on May 9, 1950 The idea of European unification was outlined.
Greece and Poland benefit from the EU
Over the decades, the European Coal and Steel Community eventually became the European Union. Greece joined in 1979 and Poland joined in 2004 as part of the eastward expansion.
They thus became members of a community of states that wanted to overcome their warlike history. “The reparations question does not fit into the system of the European Union because it raises a fundamental historical question that has fortunately been overcome for a long time,” says Schorkopf.
From his point of view, there is also an economic argument that speaks against the reparations demands of Greece and Poland. “The EU is also a transfer mechanism,” he says. “There is an equalization of prosperity between strong and weaker economies.”
The European Union wants to close development gaps between its member states. A lot of money flows from rich countries to poorer countries. “Cohesion” is what this means in Brussels. According to the Commission, Poland received 57 billion euros through funding programs between 2007 and 2020, and Greece 19 billion euros. Both countries benefit financially from the EU, while Germany contributes to the budget year after year.
Schorkopf also refers to the EU’s payments in the wake of the Greek debt crisis. In order to save the common currency, the countries of the European Union saved Greece from national bankruptcy. A total of 278 billion euros have flowed from Brussels to Athens through several rescue programs since 2010. Germany was also one of the countries that helped Greece.
The payments are not classic reparations. However, Germany has also contributed to economic development in Greece and Poland through the EU.
“Elective affinity” with postcolonialism
Schorkopf sees more political than legal reasons for the fact that the question of reparations has been raised again for several years now.
He attests that the debate has an “intellectual affinity” with postcolonialism. For him, this current also fuels demands for reparations.
The question of reparations is not about the relationship between former colonies and a colonial power. However, Schorkopf sees similar argumentation patterns. «The postcolonial discourse is about eternal burdens; about crimes that can never be compensated for.”
At the same time, in the past, German governments did not always approach the federal states on an equal footing. Poland had to listen to criticism about deficiencies in its legal system. Greece had to accept a strict austerity regime imposed by Germany.
“The reparations demands are the payback for Germany’s value-based foreign and European policy,” says Schorkopf. “You don’t want to be taught morally in these countries if you are of the opinion that Germany itself has not yet satisfactorily clarified questions of morality.”
* What are the alternative approaches, aside from traditional financial reparations, that could be explored to address the needs and grievances of countries seeking redress for historical injustices within the context of the European Union?
## Open-Ended Questions for Discussion:
Here are some open-ended questions based on the article, divided into thematic sections to encourage discussion and diverse viewpoints:
**1. Historical Context and the EU:**
* How does the article portray the evolution of the relationship between Germany and its European neighbors after World War II?
* Do you think the European Union’s founding principles, particularly the aim of overcoming centuries of conflict, are enough to address issues like reparations?
* How might the historical context of war and occupation shape current perspectives on reparations, both for those demanding them and those opposing them?
**2. Economic Impacts and the Transfer Mechanism:**
* The article mentions financial aid and development funds flowing from richer EU member states to countries like Greece and Poland. How does this “transfer mechanism” intersect with the debate on reparations?
* Is there a link between the economic disparities within the EU and the demands for reparations? Do financial contributions and development aid negate the need for separate reparations?
* Could alternative approaches, like targeted investments or infrastructure development, be more effective than traditional reparations in addressing the legacy of historical injustices?
**3. The Role of Post-Colonialism and Moral Responsibility:**
* How does the article connect the reparations debate with the broader discourse of postcolonialism?
* Is there a valid parallel between the demands for reparations from former colonies and those from countries like Greece and Poland?
* Does Germany, as a nation, hold a unique moral responsibility for its actions during World War II, regardless of the complexities of the EU framework?
**4. Future Implications and International Significance:**
* What are the potential implications for the European Union if certain member states continue to press for reparations? Could it strain relationships and unity within the bloc?
* Could the reparations debate have consequences beyond Europe, potentially influencing similar discussions in other parts of the world?
* What does this debate teach us about the lasting impact of historical events and the ongoing struggle for justice and reconciliation?
These questions are designed to provoke thought and encourage a nuanced discussion about the multifaceted issue of reparations, its historical context, and its significance for the present and future of Europe and beyond.
