I don’t know why everyone here is hacking at Merkel.What is striking is that the reasons why it is supposed to be so bad are either presented rather vaguely, or that the respondents immediately dispense with arguments.
Merkel?Has Germany been very good at the Great Depression. We almost never feel good. Why then should it be so grotto-bad? I don’t know. The matter of the refugees? No one has yet been able to give me a concrete alternative. No, we have to look elsewhere.
Cabbage?He ordered the state finances dismantled by Brandt and Schmidt and seized the opportunity for unity that people like Lafontaine would have let pass. He has stalked the construction east. Certainly not everything was done right during the unification phase. But no one would have done that. no. Nor is it.
Kiesinger is often called.But this was not so unsuccessful by the ministerial duo Plisch and Plum. no… Neither.
Ludwig Erhard?As a minister, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. But as chancellor? Little worked for him. It marks the end of the black-and-yellow era of the 50s and 60s. You could remember that.
Brandt?Economically rather unsuccessful, but reconciliation East and “More democracy dare” …. That’s how he’s out.
Schmidt?Domestic ally exemplary in the German autumn of 1977. Economically disastrous. The coalition partner F.D.P. threw the begging in front of his feet and then ordered the finances with the thick cabbage. Surely the best ex-chancellor.
Adenauer evades criticism.
Schroeder?He has taken his mouth very full before his chancellorship and has delivered almost nothing. (“Quiet Hand”) When the US economy did not start (which would have brought him economic success), the electorate also noticed it, and he lost one state election after another. after he had rallied as a dike-grapher at the Oder flutand and (in alliance with Chirac and Putin) had stayed out of the Iraq war (which the blacks would have done), he was given a second chance, especially because the Blacks made E. Stoiber a counter-candidate. That he would have won by a hair says a lot. Then at some point he had to do something; he knew the measures would be unpopular and glued the label of his “friend” Peter Hartz to you. That divided his own party. Add to that an unworthy departure on election night and the NorthSTream II affair. For me, the clear winner among the chancellors.
No chancellor has done everything right and no one has done everything wrong.But there are differences.
But the question was not about chancellors, but about chancellors.We leave those in the Middle Ages. The Reich Chancellor has existed since Bismarck. William II appointed weak chancellors so that he could personally have a free hand. Hohenlohe-Schillingsf眉rst is an example. He did not rule for three years (out of six) and cleared the railway for Bernhard von B眉low.
Then came Weimar.Certainly not only good people. By Schleicher, short and unsuccessful. Br眉ning as a stirrup holder for emergency regulations. And then Adolf Hitler. In the All Time ranking of the worst German chancellors, he is probably the “winner”. Holocaust, Germany destroyed with irretrievable cultural goods, genocides, war, etc. No other chancellor has brought as much mischief as he did about Germany and the world. By far …