Rhetoric of doom: off the barricades!

Twenty-four years ago, historian Arnulf Baring called upon German citizens to take to the barricades in an essay published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He criticized the red-green coalition government under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, arguing that Germany's political system was ill-equipped to address the challenges of its time. Baring warned that unless the country found the strength for radical renewal, the republic would collapse. “If our parties are neither programmatic nor personnel-wise capable of confronting the population with clear alternatives and thus forcing directional decisions, this republic is finished,” he wrote. His call for resistance, “Citizens, to the barricades! We must not allow everything to continue going downhill while helpless politicians let the country decay”, sparked controversy at the time, with critics accusing him of inciting violence through his polemical tone and populist rhetoric. The rhetoric of emergency has since become increasingly common in public discourse. While the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has long used similar language, warning of authoritarian measures and even civil war, such rhetoric is no longer confined to extremist circles. Recent statements from figures outside traditional extremism have echoed these themes. Writer and lawyer Juli Zeh expressed concerns about potential civil-war-like conditions in Germany during an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, despite generally maintaining an optimistic outlook toward the future. Meanwhile, rapper Beslik, based in Düsseldorf, claimed in a YouTube video podcast that the government should be overthrown by force. The video received nearly 150,000 views, and comments beneath it reflected a growing sentiment among younger viewers who agreed with Beslik’s stance, dismissing non-violent solutions as privileged thinking and asserting that the system itself perpetuates daily violence. This kind of rhetoric is not limited to isolated voices. It reflects a broader societal shift in which discussions about Germany's future often revolve around impending crisis rather than constructive solutions. The idea that the country is descending into chaos, that a fight is inevitable, and that the worst is always looming has permeated mainstream conversations. This mindset raises several concerns. Those who constantly prepare for the end may cease to advocate for a free and democratic society. Those who expect the worst may automatically label dissenters as enemies rather than engaging in meaningful debate. And those who view every crisis as existential risk may inadvertently contribute to the very divisions they claim to deplore. Baring’s warnings were once considered extreme, but today they sound almost routine. His prediction that Germany was doomed to decline has been circulating for two decades, yet the nation continues to function within its democratic framework. The question remains whether this rhetoric, once reserved for fringe elements, has now taken root in the center of public discourse. If so, it could signal a deeper malaise within German society, one that prioritizes fear and confrontation over dialogue and reform. As debates intensify and tensions rise, the challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate criticism and calls for violent upheaval. Whether Baring’s prophecy will come true depends less on the rhetoric itself and more on how Germany chooses to respond to its current challenges. The spread of such rhetoric suggests a need for renewed civic engagement and political maturity. Public figures, including those outside traditional politics, bear responsibility for shaping the national conversation. Their words can either inflame division or encourage unity. The recent resurgence of apocalyptic language underscores the importance of fostering a culture that values reason, compromise, and collective problem-solving. Without such efforts, the risk of further polarization increases, potentially undermining the stability of Germany’s democratic institutions. The coming months will reveal whether this trend persists or if new voices emerge to steer the discourse back toward constructive dialogue and action.