The British newspaper The Telegraph published an article by Jeremy Warner about the geopolitics of the European Central Bank and the Euro-Crisis. The fact that the bank had only now started the process of quantitative easing was in large part due to Germany’s previous efforts to resist this.
However, the German’s resistance against these measures taken by the ECB was not due to the German’s experiences with hyperinflation during the time of the Weimar Republic, but rather traces back to much profounder factors found deep within the German psyche: the ancient Teutonic obsession with legality and rules.
Could this also be the reason why the German response to proposals for money-saving measures, bail-outs, and troika made by the Greeks is a always the same resounding statement: “The Greeks must stick to the rules”?
But where do rules become necessary, in order to assure reliability, stability and continuity, and where must one deviate from them due to changes in circumstance? Does not every change in strategy incorporate breaking the rules of a time gone-by?
Is Jeremy Warner’s statement about a so-called ancient Teutonic obsession with legality and rules even historically accurate?
American politicians have always had a close link between their politics and their personal lives, even from America’s first days as a nation. According to Gentlemen’s Blood: a History of Dueling by Barbara Holland, “In our early years a man’s political opinions were inseparable from the self, from personal character and reputation, and as central to his honor as a seventeenth-century Frenchman’s courage was to his. He called his opinions ‘principles’, and he was willing, almost eager, to die or to kill for them.”
As such, any insult to or disagreement with a politician was seen as a threat, and the politician usually responded by challenging his opponent to a duel. According to Joannie B. Freeman in Affairs of Honor, “Longtime political opponents almost expected duels, for there was no way that constant opposition to a man’s political career could leave his personal identity unaffected.”
The best known example of a political duel was the Burr-Hamilton Duel of 1804. Vice President Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had been political enemies for some time, when rumors that Hamilton had been saying “despicable” things about Burr prompted Burr to challenge Hamilton to a duel.
The accounts of the duel are somewhat conflicting, however, it is generally believed that Hamilton fired first, aiming high and missing. Burr then returned fire – his bullet pierced Hamilton’s torso, lodging in the man’s spine. Hamilton died the following morning.
Other famous American political duels included the Jackson-Dickinson Duel, the Clay-Randolph Duel, and the Lincoln-Shields Duel.
The Evolution of Performance Reviews in the Workplace. By the 1960s, around 90% of U.S. employers had implemented formal performance review systems. These reviews were not just about evaluating results; they became a primary means for managers to provide feedback directly to employees about their individual contributions, strengths, and areas for improvement. The process was designed to be personal – feedback was delivered face-to-face, often with attention to the employee’s feelings and professional development. This approach reflects the American tendency to connect feedback on work with the person, making it both a professional and personal matter.
National Response to 9/11. The collective response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is remembered as a moment when Americans came together, and feedback – through public praise, memorials, and support-was directed at individuals such as first responders and victims’ families. The outpouring of support and recognition was highly personal, emphasizing empathy, emotional connection, and the linking of national performance (resilience, unity) with individual stories and heroism.
Civil Service Reforms (18th–19th Century). The Prussian state is famous for pioneering a professional, merit-based civil service. Reforms under Frederick the Great and later administrators emphasized: objectivity and efficiency in evaluating officials; performance-based promotions and appointments, not personal connections; a culture where professional conduct and results mattered more than personal feelings or relationships. Civil servants were expected to perform their duties impartially, and feedback on their work was formal, standardized, and focused strictly on results.
McCarthy Hearings (1954). Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist investigations targeted the personal loyalties and reputations of government officials, military officers, and private citizens. Accusations of professional disloyalty were treated as attacks on personal character, often resulting in ruined careers and social ostracism—highlighting how, in American public life, professional and personal assessments are inseparable.
MerriamWebster online writes: a person who you like and enjoy being with; a person who helps or supports someone or something; one attached to another by affection or esteem; a favored companion.
Middle English frend, from Old English frēond; akin to Old High German friunt friend, Old English frēon to love, frēo free. First Known Use: before 12th century. Among its synonyms are alter ego, amgo, buddy, chum, compadre. comrade, confidant, crony, familiar, intimate, pal.
What is a Freund?
dwds(dot)de writes: Vertrauter, someone you can trust; jemandem innerlich verbundener Mensch, a person who is especially close to another. Old High German (8th Century) vriunt, friend, next closest, mate, relative.
This is not the place to address how Americans and Germans diverge in the understanding of friend, friendship, what it means to be a friend. But here is a thought:
Is it not the true friend who has your best interests in mind, and therefore is willing to risk the loss of your friendship in order to convey a message which is painfully important for you to hear?
Formulated differently: What true friend, who sees that you are on the wrong path, would not speak to you about it?
In his book A Fiery Peace in a Cold War: Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon (2010) author Neil Sheehan describes the life and work of Bernard Schriever, who is considered to be the father of the American nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Schriever and his military and civilian colleagues believed firmly that if both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed these weapons of mass destruction the probability of them being used actually would be decreased.
Schriever had to overcome strong institutional resistance within the U.S. Air Force whose leadership was convinced that manned aircraft﹣strategic long-range bombers﹣was the only way to maintain a credible deterrent against the Soviet Union.
Through telling the story of Bernard Schriever and the development of the American ballistic missile program from the end of Second World War up to the mid-1960s Sheehan tells the history of the Cold War, which would last up until the 1990s with the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of West and East Germany, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and the freedom of Eastern Europe from Russian domination.
In a 2010 television interview (Booknotes on C-SPAN) Sheehan contrasted Schriever with his American-born military colleagues, Generals Paul Harkins and William Westmoreland, both who had overall command of U.S. forces in the Vietnam War.
Schriever would tell his subordinates that he would never fire anyone for failing, but instead for failing to inform him immediately of problems. For Schriever, as stated by Sheehan, success would take care of itself if one focused on solving the problems at hand. Go to minutes 25:10 to 26:50.
Sheehan had been a young war correspondent in Vietnam for United Press International (UPI), later with the New York Times. As told in his book A Bright Shining Lie (1989), which won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, the American generalship during the Vietnam War was unwilling to accept that America was losing that war.
General Schriever, according to Sheehan‘s research, made clear time and again to the members of this organization, whether military or civilian, that he wanted timely and accurate reports on the problems the program was experiencing, and was far less interested in the progress made.
So-called progress reports had become common within the U.S. military after the Second World War, and according to Sheehan, symptomatic for an institution unwilling to face what was not working.
Bernard Adolph Schriever was born in 1910 in the German port city of Bremen. His father was an engineer. They immigrated to the U.S. only months before the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917.
Schriever grew up in New Braunfels, Texas, an area mostly populated by German immigrants. Read about his fascinating life in Wikipedia
Max Weber – The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905). Though a sociological work, Weber’s analysis of rationalization and the rise of bureaucracy in German (and Western) society underpins the German approach to work and feedback. He describes a culture in which professional roles are defined by rational, impersonal rules, and performance is assessed objectively, not emotionally.
Even if an American loses a conflict within a company, after having escalated it once or twice, if he/she strongly believes to be in the right, it is not uncommon for that American to seek an even higher authority – the public at large. When that happens, the person who exposes the conflict is called a “whistleblower.”
Edward Snowden was working for the NSA when he publicly accused them of spying. Snowden said that the reason why he decided to make his accusations public was that he “can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”
In 2014, former State Department official John Tye wrote an editorial in The Washington Post in which he discussed his concerns about his department.
Thomas Drake was an executive in the NSA (National Security Agency) when he began to disagree with the agency’s policies. After several attempts to address his concerns internally, Drake decided to make his complaints public and turned to reporter Siobhan Gorman in 2006.