Dr. Radu Golban: “Lesson of anatomy of Germany’s debt”

On 10 April 2013, a debate took place at Brussels, in the precincts of the European Union Parliament, at the initiative of the European MP Adrian Severin and of Radu Golban, doctor in economy, entitled “Causes of euro-scepticism – Is there a debt of Germany to Romania?” The debate also benefited of the participation, as experts, of the famous German historian dr. Klaus Thorner, one of the best experts in the history of the economical and political German – South-eastern relations, and of prof. Dr. Albrecht Ritschl, from London School of Economics, German citizen and uncontested expert in the most sensible subject of Europe, namely that of Germany’s debts after war, unpaid till nowadays.
The experts’ discourses treated the theme with scientific rigour, as well as with the aesthetics of the old school pathologist as if they were analysing the main motif of Rembrandt’s painting “Lesson of anatomy of dr. Nicolaes Tulp”. The attention, as well as the fear in the eyes of the participants in the events in Brussels, is also similar to the expressions of the characters in the oil painting by the Dutch master. Both an anatomic dissection in the 17th century and a dissection of Germany’s debts after war are ingrate themes, which really contravene the social and political trend, in both cases the main stress laying on the chiaroscuro. In the group of experts closely united around the most morbid element of the European politics, the unpaid debts of Germany after the war appear as conspicuous as the pink colour of the dead in Rembrandt’s painting. This theme certainly exerts the strongest attraction through its scientific demonstration within the event.
Dr. Thorner, the author of the book of over 500 pages entitled “The entire South-East of Europe is our Hinterland”, a not feared German historian, was the first to seize the scalpel. His discourse dealt both with the organic tissue of the German-Romanian relations during the inter war period – which generated the famous duty of Germany to Romania amounting to almost 19 billion euro – and with the study of the causes and symptoms of this damaging relation, a real treatise of histopathology.
Dr. Radu Golban continues the demonstration through a pathological analysis of the Euro-scepticism in Romania, which could cause the “decease of Europe”, exemplifying the symptoms of this European malady through a chronic aversion of Germany towards her own debts.
Prof. Dr. Ritschl, as dr. Tulp, took over the scalpel and explained the honourable audience that a glance of Germany into the past over her own debts to several states of Europe is just like a glance at “Sodoma and Gomora”. The titular of the history chair of economy at the most famous faculty of economic sciences of the world has presented in the past too, on lots of occasions, the fact that reality is different from the one we know from the media propaganda.
The German expert presented the attentive listeners, in his fascinating lesson of anatomy of the German debts, the structure of the nervous system, namely of the political irascibility of Berlin towards this theme. He presented in chronological order the three lines of the “bankruptcies” of the German organism. After the bankruptcy of the Republic of Weimar, in the thirties, in 1953 Germany was exempted from all claims of war damages and from the compensation of the deficient clearing accounts (Romania’s case), as well as from all debts of the Reich. It was the last bankruptcy, then, in 1990, through the refusal of chancellor Helmuth Kohl to implement the Treaty of London of 1953, which exempted Germany one more time from the payment of hundreds of billions. First, it was established that the German payments for repairing and compensating the clearing accounts after the World War II be regulated in case of unification and signing a peace treaty. Germany refused to name the reunification treaty as peace treaty, just not to re-establish the clauses settled in 1953.
In the opinion of this famous German economist, Berlin holds the first place in the world for bankruptcies during the last hundred years. He also warns Germany that the mood of Europe could turn against her in case Berlin does not succeed in controlling the monetary crisis.
Although the Germans are susceptible in this regard, always considering their country a victim of the compensation payments after the war, there is no justified reason for the omniscient attitude of Germany. Germany has not paid any reparation so far, but for the compensation of the forced labour and compensation of the Holocaust victims, which she uses to promote the pride of the philanthropic state. As for the chapter of the unpaid debts she is always confusing the quota to the EU budget, which ensures her a market unique in the world, with the moral obligations to Europe.
The German university professor from London urges us not to forget that Germany began two world wars in the 20th century, and then her former enemies forgave her debts to a very generous extend, which fact facilitated an economical launch of the country and prosperity. The feeling of sponsor or of Mecene of Europe, which is very widely spread in the German and European media, is extremely dangerous and shameful, Ritschl points out. If Germany forgot this fact, the Romanians, Greeks and others have not forgotten that Germany’s success is due to the favour done by other European states too. In case the mood in Greece, or Romania, or in other European states too worsens under the influence of the euro-scepticism, we can expect the requests to pay the old war repairs and compensation of the clearing accounts to appear, dr. Radu Golban says.
The salvation of Europe from the debts crisis, points our professor Ritschl, is a convenient solution besides the amounts that Germany should pay if the European countries would present the invoices still unpaid after the war.
European MP Norica Nicolai and senator Sorin Rosca-Stanescu (National Liberal Party), a group of students and young journalists of Romania and officials through their discreet presence from the German Embassy in Brussels honoured this anatomic demonstration.
The laconic echo in the Romanian press, quite opposite to that of the anatomic – scientific one of the debt, shows us, in fact, that a few centuries must still pass till we are willing to appeal to dissection too, if need be, in order to better understand the role of Romania in Europe. We refuse, at least today, a truth scientifically proved, just like Rembrandt’s contemporaries refused dissection, in the same cultural manner of the 17th century – some of them not to delude divinity through medicine, and others not to upset the hegemonic one saying a truth.
Concretely, the seminar had at least a direct impact: the German experts clearly appealed to the Romanian press and civil society of Romania to persuade the authorities of Bucharest to speak officially with Berlin. Berlin would never begin such a dialogue without such a pressure of the people.
Let us be serious and admit that the theme has nothing to do with Rembrandt: A) the deceased in the oil painting is, as the art critics say, a fresh one, just brought from hanging, not deceased seventy years ago, and B) Dr. Tulp, alias Prof. Ritschl, expects a resurrection and rehabilitation of the patient through exercises of morality.