Andrei Markovits on Anti-Americanism

I don't have a long enough historical perspective to judge whether European anti-Americanism has increased recently, but Andrei Markovits, a Romanian who has commuted back and forth between the United States and Europe since 1960, definitely does.

In a fine essay that you should go read, he says that anti-Americanism has increased dramatically and appears to have become a permanent feature of European cultual life:

Any trip to Europe confirms what surveys have been finding: The aversion to America is becoming greater, louder, more determined. It is unifying Western Europeans more than any other political emotion — with the exception of a common hostility toward Israel. Indeed, the virulence in Western Europe's antipathy to Israel cannot be understood without the presence of anti-Americanism and hostility to the United States. Those two closely related resentments are now considered proper etiquette. They are present in polite company and acceptable in the discourse of the political classes....

There can be no doubt that many disastrous and irresponsible policies by members of the Bush administration, as well as their haughty demeanor and arrogant tone, have contributed massively to this unprecedented vocal animosity on the part of Europeans toward Americans and America. Indeed, they bear responsibility for having created a situation in which anti-Americanism has mutated into a sort of global antinomy, a mutually shared language of opposition to and resistance against the real and perceived ills of modernity that are now inextricably identified with America. I have been traveling back and forth with considerable frequency between the United States and Europe since 1960, and I cannot recall a time like the present, when such a vehement aversion to everything American has been articulated in Europe. No Western European country is exempt from this phenomenon — not a single social class, no age group or profession, nor either gender. But the aversion reaches much deeper and wider than the frequently evoked "anti-Bushism." I perceive this virulent, Europewide, and global "anti-Bushism" as the glaring tip of a massive anti-American iceberg.

Three recent shifts have transformed anti-Americanism from a fringe phenomenon to a defining aspect of European culture. First, the Bush Administration's policies have driven anti-Americanism into "overdrive." Second, the demise of the Soviet Union and America's increasing power and arrogance have seriously weakened neutral or pro-American sentiment, which formerly acted as a counterweight to anti-Americanism. Third, the sheer number of reasons to be angry at the U.S.A. has reached critical mass, furnishing grudges for every European social group:

America [is accused] of being retrograde on three levels: moral (America's being the purveyor of the death penalty and of religious fundamentalism, as opposed to Europe's having abolished the death penalty and adhering to an enlightened secularism); social (America's being the bastion of unbridled "predatory capitalism," to use the words of former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and of punishment, as opposed to Europe as the home of the considerate welfare state and of rehabilitation); and cultural (America the commodified, Europe the refined; America the prudish and prurient, Europe the savvy and wise).

Conservative or communist, Arab immigrant or nationalist dock worker, Green party member or factory owner, Europeans from all classes and backgrounds can agree on their disgust with one or another quality they associate with the United States.

Drawing from diverse areas of discourse such as sports and university reform, Markovits shows how America is presumed to have almost unlimited power to force "Americanization" into all the corners of European life, and highlights the incoherence of much anti-American reasoning:

All of these "Americanizations" bemoan an alleged loss of purity and authenticity for Europeans at the hands of a threatening and unwelcome intruder who — to make matters worse — exhibits a flaring cultural inferiority. America is resented for everything and its opposite: It is at once too prurient and too puritanical; too elitist, yet also too egalitarian; too chaotic, but also too rigid; too secular and too religious; too radical and too conservative. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Anti-Americanism, Markovits notes, has desirable side-effects: it provides contrasts which help form a common European cultural identity. Markovits also disagrees with those who maintain that anti-Americanism is an irrational phenomenon, and that Europe will soon "come to its senses" and realize the need to return to a strong trans-Atlantic bond. Anti-Americanism is here to stay, he insists, because "[f]ar from harming Europe and its interests, anti-Americanism has helped Europeans gain respect, affection, and — most important — political clout in the rest of the world."

It's a balanced and thoughtful piece, devoid of hysteria or defensiveness, and laden with plenty of specific examples. It's worth a careful read.

Comments

[Mr German Courses]

What about anti-european-convictions? Did anybody think about that in connection to the replies above?

[Mr German Courses]

What about anti-european-convictions? Americans often dont`t know anything about us here in Europe, and what is worst: they don`t want to know anything!

[Don]

What points was I to have addressed, Koch? Assuming that you were not condemned out of your own writings as a bigot and worthy of a response, that is?

"I still assert that Iraq – and the manner this decision framed Bush’s presidency – defined the abrupt loss of such solidarity for Europeans (and now a majority of US citizens, if you trust the 2006 Congressional results)."

Balls. The solidarity was lost a long time ago. I recall loud cries in the German press to try American soldiers as 'war criminals' during the 90's when the US was cleaning up the mess in the Balkans for you ungrateful Europeans.

This has been building for a very long time - Iraq was merely the pretext.

So be it. There is nothing more dead than a dead alliance - and NATO is rotting from the head like any other dead fish....

[Koch]

@ Don

Sorry, I won’t slink away.

1) Yes, Europeans did disapprove of of the Bush administration’s policies, and well before 2004. I’ll claim they felt immediate solidarity with the US in September 2001, and this persevered until around February 2003, at which point the US decision to invade Iraq became evident.

I still assert that Iraq – and the manner this decision framed Bush’s presidency – defined the abrupt loss of such solidarity for Europeans (and now a majority of US citizens, if you trust the 2006 Congressional results).

Don – it is late at night, and I’ll seek statistics tomorrow, should you still request them. Nonetheless, I believe that the majority of Europeans did not support the US invasion of Iraq – and the consequences thereof I have noted in past posts. I well recall a trip through Europe during March 2003 and the rainbow ‚Pace’ flags visible in government offices, residences, companies and institutions – literally everywhere. If Italy, Germany and France define Europe for you – then hey – it was a stark, visible display back then.

2) Sure Schroeder played the Iraq card for the political capital it was worth at the time with his „No to Iraq“ statements – and this was evidently significant. I’d argue the Canadian standpoint of ‚we’ll contribute to Afghanistan – and now all of our forces are tied up’ as far more savvy. Witness as well, however, the resounding political support Schroeder received in his reelection bid here in Germany as evidence of – at least – German support for that position. Germans wanted no part of that invasion. Or look at the support Chirac received through his similar position. Neither did the French. Contrast this with Merkel’s ‚malheur’ in visiting Bush and reaffirming German (opposition) support at the same time, and the political fallout she suffered here as a result. Or take a look at Tony Blair.

Again – if my metaphor is met with injury, I apologize.

But I note – you haven’t adressed the arguments I made in my previous post.

I think – given your tone – it is time to shift this to PM. As such – this is my last comment to this article.

[Andrew Hammel]

A few observations: I see no proof of ungratefulness. The day after the 9/11 attacks, NATO officially invoked its defense doctrine for the first time in its history. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder offered the U.S. "unlimited solidarity." In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, as far as I am aware, all requests for assistance from the U.S. were met by Germany; and some extra offers were turned down. German/U.S. cooperation in anti-terror investigations has been smooth.

The U.S. had the resources it needed to respond to the 9/11 attacks, didn't need any particular help from Germany, and has never complained about Germany's conduct in the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Germany was protected by the NATO alliance, as were plenty of other nations. But, of course, the United States' own interests were also served by this alliance. Further, the obliging behavior was not all one-way: Germany took some very unpopular decisions to support the alliance, such as permitting medium-range nuclear missiles to be stationed on its soil -- an action requesed by the United States which proved controversial in Germany.

There was some anti-American rhetoric during the 2002 election campaign in Germany. There was also legitimate criticism of wildly controversial American policies. Let us not forget that in late 2002, when the German campaign was in full swing, the United States was openly pushing for war in Iraq. For every fatuous piece of German anti-Americanism, there was a legitimate, entirely fair attempt to warn the United States of the dangers of this course of action.

I am not aware of any evidence of bad faith; that is, it's clear that Germany's leaders honestly, in good faith believed American policy on this point to be disastrously wrong. Therefore, they justifiably concluded it would not be in Germany's national interest to involve itself in that policy. They saw a serious danger to their own interests and took action accordingly. This is how nations act; it's how the United States acts. It's neither an insult nor an outrage.

It definitely bears repeating that Germany's policy -- and its advice to the United States -- was correct. Germany's clear, largely respectful warnings to the U.S. about the dangers of its plan to invade Iraq were analogous to a person taking his friend's car keys away from him after a long night on the town: it may (and did) provoke short-term irritation, but there's no truer sign of friendship.

The offensive Bush-Hitler comparison made by Hertha Daeubler-Gmelin resulted in an official letter of apology from Chancellor Schroeder, denunciation from most mainstream German politicians and commentators, and the resignation of the official herself. This strikes me as an appropriate response.

[Don]

I see, Koch. You are claiming the 'Europeans' disapproved of the Bush administration until the 2004 election, when the US electorate re-elected Bush and therefore approved what Bush had done. Whereupon the selfsame 'Europeans' transferred their disapproval onto us 'fat ignorant Yankee tourists' who re-elected Bush.

Firstly, I don't buy the 'Europeans' bit. Some 'Europeans', yes. Possibly many 'Europeans, possibly even most 'Europeans' - if you can prove it.

Second, the same dynamic applies in the other direction. Post 9/11 I saw a German government which was very, very, very reluctant to come to the aid of the US in any significant way. Despite Germany being the main beneficiary of the NATO alliance for a half-century it appears the view of the German government that NATO was (and is) a unilateral alliance - with no duties to the US that Germany need honor.

Then Schroeder used the US administration as one of the major issues in an election campaign which contained some very ugly rhetoric - including the ex-Justice Minister comparing 'methods of Bush' with 'methods of Hitler'. Thank you sweetly. But my anger was confined to the German government at that point. Up to election day when the German people approved of everything the German government had done by returning it to office.

Unlike your no doubt wonderfully tolerant and sophisticated self, however, I do not ascribe this to 'fat ignorant German tourists' or any such stupid stereotypes. Nor do I transfer your bigotry to a general judgement upon your countrymen or your continent. You stand for yourself, Koch, and nobody else.

I suggest you lose the bigotry or slink off!

[Koch]

Sorry - meant @ Don.

[Koch]

@ Norbert:

I’m sorry you disapprove of my metaphor. I disagree that the metaphor doesn’t serve to elucidate my thesis – although I’d agree that it is provocative, perhaps needlessly so.

My thesis remains that Europeans, dismayed at American foreign policy between 2000 and 2004, especially the invasion of Iraq, were willing to chalk that up to a rogue administration. Whether you pin it on - oil, ‚democratizing’ the Middle East, support for Israel by wiping out a serious threat – whatever. Doesn’t really matter. Most of the European conspiracy theories in this regard are one-sided and spurious. Senate and House debates reflect a wide range of discussion points, most of them poorly-considered and ill-conceived or unsupported, as most Congressmen today have acknowledged.

In mid-2004, most Europeans – and in particular, the people here who do more than read the Bild – remained fundamentally positively disposed toward the American people and American ideals, in spite of what their government undertook in the name thereof.

The thesis continues: In 2004, that positive predisposition was categorically undermined when a majority (slim, but still a majority) of American voters elected Bush back into office. It became impossible to argue that „I don’t like their policies, but most Americans don’t either, and I have sympathy for them, and we still share fundamentally similar understandings“. Obviously, most Americans either (a) did like those policies, or (b) weren’t terribly concerned by them, and voted for Bush for other reasons.

From a European standpoint, (b) is the only charitable explanation – or even reasonable one, according to European values, interests and perceptions. I think you would agree that it is hard to find a European who would endorse the GWOT or whatever it is called now in the context of the terms and discrete actions undertaken by the US administration. With that, I include Guantanamo, Iraq, renditions, civil surveillance, blockading civil investigations and judicial oversight and a disregard for the rights of individuals, sovereign states and the rule of law.

And (b), meaning an insensitivity toward other values, interests and perceptions, or even the lack of awareness of same, is the hallmark of the European stereotype of the ‚fat American tourist’ who blunders his or her way into other entrenched situations with neither an interest in, nor an understanding of these, and typically causes disruption and damage.

Tony Judt sums it up in a Nybooks article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17726) perhaps best when he notes that „And that, not some sort of atavistic anti-Americanism or rocket-envy, is why many reasonable Europeans and their leaders are utterly enraged by President George W. Bush.“

He is referring to US insensitivity that the ‚far off’ range of Middle East policy and its inherent complexity ends up being right in Europe’s backyard – a fact to which many Europeans are extremely sensitive. Not for colonial reasons, but because this region serves as a trading partner, a geographically and strategically important resource center and a region with visceral and direct ties to Europe. An inability to grasp these dynamics or to respect them damages Europe.

For example: Turkey – a country which many Germans have direct ties to – borders Iraq. Allegedly more Turkish civilian contractors have been killed in Iraq as the result of the instability there than those of any other country. People here in Germany with relatives there (my taxi driver last month) are simply appalled at the state of affairs down there. The same applies to the Germans, as cited in my responses, who care about the civil, cultural and historical damage done to this country and its population, which continues today under the aegis of the US. They don’t sense that the US is proceeding there with anywhere near the appropriate amount of tact, sensitivity or awareness of regional norms, or even resources. They question - deeply - why this is not evident to or important to Americans.

Germans are well aware of what it takes to remodel a war-torn country. Above all, they are incensed that this disaster is largely disregarded by the American government as being a direct product of unwarranted US intervention, and that repeated efforts to address the problems lead nowhere. They cite Colin Powell – you break it, you own it – and they ask whether the US is even remotely prepared to accept the responsibilities attached to ownership – such as are enshrined in the German Basic Law („Eigentum verpflichtet“).

If you have issues with the thesis, expressed as above (or below), fire away. If you simply feel offended by the metaphor or my resorting to stereotypes, can you elaborate on why this stereotype isn’t applicable as such a metaphor, given the context? Feel free to pm me on the attached email.

PS – the Harvard and Yale comment was a direct shot at Bush, seeing as he graduated from these institutions. I have a lot of respect for these universities. My respect extends to their progeny on a case-by-case basis.

[Don]

Koch,

It seems to me that you are linking two unrelated concepts - and digging yourself deeper with each effusion.

You seem to to be fond of the 'fat ignorant American tourist' stereotype (which is offensive in itself), and you try to link this stereotype to the outcome of US elections and actions of the US government which you disagree with. As far as I can make out you believe the US electorate is composed of fat ignorant American tourists and it is these who elected Bush?

Except for people from 'Harvard and Yale' who presumably are aducated and should know better.

You seem disappointed with American behavior, which is your right. In turn I am disappointed by your attachment to ignorant sereotypes of all kinds "naive Canadian, the insensitive Brit, the drunken Australian or whatever", which exacerbates the negative effects of your previous negative stereotype ("fat ignorant American tourist").

I'm afraid this propensity of yours has dual bad effects, Koch. It makes you appear to be an ignorant German baiter of foreigners (particularly english-speakers). And it tangles your thesis beyond salvage. Asuming of course that you HAVE a thesis. You may not of course.

[Koch]

@ Norbert and James:

I have little against the 'fat American tourist', except that he - like the naive Canadian, the insensitive Brit, the drunken Australian or whatever (cliches - eben) isn't typically welcome wherever he ends up when he aims to put himself in a position to cause deep problems. Fat people with cultural sensitivity - no problem. Inqusitive and receptive but ignorant people on their first trip to Europe - no problem.

People who should know better as far as sensitivity and irgnorance goes (perhaps those who attended Harvard and Yale) and still act as though they were unable to benefit from either institution - and who were then elected ti the nation's highest public office - problem.

If the US had demonstrated either inqusitiveness or sensitivity prior to and re: Iraq, it still would have been an unjustified war with a dreadfully high toll on lives and livelihoods and cultural fabric - but we might have ended up with - at the end - an equation where the projected variable was justified by the prior evaluations. I - and I believe many Europeans share this view, increasingly Americans - don't believe this is the case.

Instead - 'we' - and I mean this as someone of US-American and Canadian heritage who has lived long enough here in Germany to sense nuances between the cultural domains - are manifestly disappointed by what has taken place in the name of 'America' and how this present situation - I come back to this point again - was essentially sanctioned by US voters in 2004.

That is simply hard to explain to Europeans. And - thankfully - to an increasingly large number of Americans as well.

[Ligia]

"Yeah, Norbert. When a German visits Lago Garda to windsurf and drink beer he is being broad-minded and international"

Don, you´re great! LOL!!! I was offline for few days and missed this enthusiastic debate: 41 comments! And one of the main problems here is the same I´ve seen in comments from other Andrew´s posts: some people just can´t understand the articles enough to enjoy 100% from "German Joys". Take it easy, guys!

[Norbert]

I would like to add to Don's post another factor that distorts the US-German tourism statistics mentioned earlier.

When European tourists use a U.S. airport as a hub to travel to Central or South America, they have to officially enter the U.S. territory and go through U.S. customs first before boarding the onward flight. So if you're only staying a few hours at Newark airport before you go on to fly to, say, Guatemala, you're acutally entering the U.S., if only for a short moment, and you therefore (probably) count as tourist having stayed in "America".

[Carsten]

Martin,

you do want to tell me that you see a causal connection between 64% believers in god and religion lessons in school? So the number should be even lower if there weren't such lessons? Let me tell you: 64% is by no means a lot for country that is christianized for 1200 years. It's a low number, considering that even these 64% are not true believers in the christian faith, as the lower number for the question about an afterlife shows. Even if someone both believes in a god and an afterlife, it is absolutely possible that his ideas are not compatible to christian teachings. I would guess that no more than 1/3 of the Germans really believe in the teachings of a Christian church, i.e., half of those who are officialy members of such a church.

[martin]

@Carsten,

somehow I'm sensing you're trying to prove me wrong but then you're giving me this number of 64% which is a massive success in terms of indoctrination. Especially when the same schools teach so much other stuff about life and the world that doesn't explicitly have any of that supposedly all-present God in it at all and leaves very little room for one.
The number of 42% of after-life believers is also critical in maintaining class divisions in a society, since believers can be asked to succumb to all sorts of indignations in return for promises delivered in said after-life.

[Don]

"When Americans come over to "do" Europe, they have to make a selection between at least ten countries to visit whereas for Germans, it doesn't make a difference: whether NY, Chicago, Grand Canyon or Yosemite Park, it's always America."

Yes. Some Americans literally think of it as Europe rather than France. Germany, etc. Others are better informed and recognize countries, and still others think in terms of regions.

I have a question about those statistics from the Office of Travel and Tourism, though? How do they capture them? Presumably from passport stamps at airports. In 1994 I was liviig in Italy and went on a long driving trip to Germany with 3 friends. No passport control at the border.

That presumably didn't count as a visit to Germany from the statistical POV. The same comment would apply to Americans entering Europe from Heathrow, Charles De Gaulle, Milano Malpensa, or Schilpol airport and continuing their journey by rail into Germany. A lot of Americans travel using the Eurail pass and relatively few of them will begin their journey at a German airport.

This is common in Europe but not in the US. I might fly into Toronto for a trip to upstate New York. Vancouver is another possible Canadian destination (to visit the US) although Seattle will be a better choice for the vast majority of Washington State. I cannot think of any other examples in North America.

Another thing is that Germany is not a top tourism magnet for Americans. France, Spain, the UK, Italy, and possibkly Ireland and Nederlands will draw more Americans. I have spent 10 weeks in France and probably 12 weeks in Italy as a tourist compared to only 3-4 weeks in Germany total. And only that much because I worked in Germany for about 3-4 months.

[Carsten]

Martin,

what you write about religious teaching in German schools is outright ridiculous, because it has nothing to do whatsoever with the German reality.

You write: "And even if all that kids get from their religious instruction is getting accustomed to having to obey authority and not publicly question basic tenets, then the damage is done."

Yes, if that was what they would get. But they don't. Religious instruction in German schools is not about indoctrination, it's about learning facts about a certain religion (and also about other religions, to a less extent). Knowledge about religion is obviously important to understand culture and politics. And the pupils are not graded for the strength of their faith, of course, but according to what they have learned, just like in English or chemistry lessons.

As for religious convictions in Germany, I cite a survey in "Spiegel Spezial: Weltmacht Religion": 64% of the Germans say they belief in a god (only 30% in the former GDR); 22% of those who are formally protestant christs say they don't, and 14% of catholic christs don't, either. 42% belief in a life after death, 50% don't, 8% aren't sure or don't want to say (interestingly, a 50-to-42% majority of the women does belief in life after death).

[Norbert]

Just to be clear: I didn't interpret Don's windsurfing post as a counterattack to my previous comment either. It was obvious to me that my comment was not anti-American and that Don's "yeah" was not meant hostile.

Joerg, your reaction shows that one can read a lot into "neutral" statements from a person when one is already expecting that person's hostility. And perhaps that is one symptom of the growing rift in US-European relations, that there is more and more mistrust against each other and thus, even small or just perceived disagreements prompt people to resent. Perhaps more often than we think we should reassure ourselves of our common grounds and voice them openly (sounds cliché but there's some truth to it).

[Don]

"Don, however, understood his comment to be Anti-American as is evident by his sarcastic response: "Yeah, Norbert."

You are wrong Joerg. I did not take Norbert's comment as anti-american. I was merely providing an example of a mindset which I have seen certain Europeans exhibit - but not ascribing it to Norbert.

You completely missed the point of the comment about windsurfing. The German and the Yank are after precisely the same thing, showing common human desires. Lago Garda and the Outer Banks both have great windsurfing. They are the same despite everything the pundits say....

[Joerg]

When James and Norbert were discussing tourism statistics, Don detected some Anti-Americanism.

I guess this is a good example of how quickly some Americans consider a statement to be Anti-American.

First James W. pointed out that the number of Americans visiting Germany is roughly the same number as Germans visiting America and comments "but remember that there are about three and a half times as many US citizens." I think, he is just speaking about statistics.

Then Norbert comments on the statistics by pointing out that America is bigger than Germany and that there is more to see in America than in Germany. Rather than comparing Germany with the US, we should compare Europe with the US. American tourists "have to make a selection between at least ten countries to visit whereas for Germans, it doesn't make a difference: whether NY, Chicago, Grand Canyon or Yosemite Park, it's always America." Thus, it makes more sense to compare the number of American tourists to Europe rather than just to Germany, because Germany competes with "at least ten countries" in Europe for the American tourist. Again, Norbert is just talking about statistics. I detect no Anti-American slant whatsoever.
Quite the contrary, I think he was defending Americans for not visiting Germany. Norbert made a pro-American comment by arguing that American tourists have plenty of other places to see in Europe. Not just Germany.

Don, however, understood his comment to be Anti-American as is evident by his sarcastic response: "Yeah, Norbert. When a German visits Lago Garda to windsurf and drink beer he is being broad-minded and international When an American visits the Outer Banks to drink beer and windsurf he is being narrow-minded and insular.
The same principal applies to beach vacations. Beach vacations in Tunisia, Spain, or Turkey - good. Beach vacations in the US - bad!
Hillarious...."

I find it hilarious, how quickly some Americans perceive a comment as Anti-American and feel offended.

Don, I am not trying to criticize you. I just consider this to be an example of what is at work here. I think these misunderstandings are typical for many Germans and many Americans.

Is this the hostile media effect at work? Many American expect Europeans to be Anti-American, thus these Americans are quick to read Anti-Americanism into any statement. Germans are not presumed innocent until proven Anti-American, but guilty of Anti-Americanism until proven innocent.

Don, what made you think Norbert was making an Anti-American comment?
Was it his reference to "When Americans come over to "do" Europe..."? I think he was just using a phrase, he heard somewhere. I do not detect anything negative and stereotyping in it, but of course that is just me. Perhaps I am not sensitive enough? Perhaps you are too sensitive? Who knows?

[martin]

@James W.,

in my first comment (scroll down) I just mentioned the religion thing as an aside but then people kept harping on so there you go. My blog also has other things apart from religion. On the other hand, don't underestimate religion. It doesn't need to be visible all over the (public) place to be there and guide people's life. I now a lot of people that say they believe in God but they don't need a church for that. And even if all that kids get from their religious instruction is getting accustomed to having to obey authority and not publicly question basic tenets, then the damage is done.

[James W.]

Raeefa, the cover you're referring to wasn't a Spiegel cover.

martin, it just strikes me as odd that all of things German you criticize (and there's no shortage of criticism), you end up focusing on religion. There's close to no religious rhetoric in German politics, no mega-churches, church membership is dwindling. Why did you pick religion? That's like complaining that there's not enough nudity on German TV.

[Raeefa]

@ James W.

Regarding the "anti-semitic" cliche used by Der Spiegel, I believe it was in reference to American businesses buying up German ones at exceedingly low prices - they used the term "bloodsucker" or something close to that, which was reminiscent of Nazi slurs against Jews.

[martin]

@James W.:

"You also seem to believe that religion is a subject that's taught in German school from first grade all the way through Abitur."
Yes I know it's hard to believe such a superficially modern nation could embrace such antiquated values, but that's exactly what's happening. I am not 100% sure about the Abitur (see below), but certainly from grade 1 all the way to grade 10, on a weekly basis, with no interruptions. East Germany may have exceptions. The early years are of course the most important ones since it's much easier if you get them young if you want to indoctrinate someone.

For Germany's most populous state, NRW, you can find the government's detailed "instruction plans" here, you have to register with the web site first. Plans for Grundschule, Sekundarstufe I/Gesamtschule and Sekundarstufe II seem to be there, the plans for Sekundardstufe I for other schools seems to be missing but that doesn't mean that religion isn't happening. For other states, I'll leave the exercise to the inclined reader.

Regarding the Abitur, in NRW you can elect both Protestant and Catholic Christian religion as your "major" for the university-like exam that is Abitur, as you can in most other states.

As for the atheism numbers that some commenter left on my blog, I don't know whether they are true to begin with and if yes, it's good to know that some people manage to wean themselves from religion as they grow up.

[Don]

Yeah, Norbert. When a German visits Lago Garda to windsurf and drink beer he is being broad-minded and international When an American visits the Outer Banks to drink beer and windsurf he is being narrow-minded and insular.

The same principal applies to beach vacations. Beach vacations in Tunisia, Spain, or Turkey - good. Beach vacations in the US - bad!

Hillarious....

[Norbert]

But remember also that America is roughly 27 times the size of Germany and, from a purely touristic point of view, there are at least as many times more points of interest in the U.S. than in Germany. When Americans come over to "do" Europe, they have to make a selection between at least ten countries to visit whereas for Germans, it doesn't make a difference: whether NY, Chicago, Grand Canyon or Yosemite Park, it's always America.