Bavarian politics are agitated by an anti-Semitic pamphlet. It was credited to Hubert Aiwanger, the deputy premier of Bavaria. However, his brother was the author.
 |
| Hubert Aiwanger |
Instead of Hubert, was it actually Helmut? What function did Hubert Aiwanger, of the Free Voters, serve? How challenging is Markus Söder’s (CSU) case?
What was on the leaflet?
An anti-Semitic pamphlet was discovered in Aiwanger’s school, the Burkhart-Gymnasium in Mallersdorf-Pfaffenberg, during the 1987–1988 academic year.
The “entertainment district of Auschwitz” is mentioned, and the article is about a made-up “federal competition” called “Who is the biggest traitor to the fatherland?” A “free flight through the Auschwitz chimney” is the first reward, while a “one-year stay in Dachau” is the fourth. The author of the pamphlet was first given as Hubert Aiwanger. Then Helmut, his elder brother, declared that he was the author.
How believable is Aiwanger’s justification?
Hubert and Helmut Aiwanger provided credible and complementary descriptions. They are not evidence. Additionally, they spark doubts (see below). There are currently contradicting claims and data. Only a tiny group of people close to the Aiwanger brothers are aware of the truth. The possibility exists that the general audience will never learn the true author of the paper.
How did the booklet end up in the bag?
According to Hubert Aiwanger, “one or a few copies” of the booklet were “found” in his rucksack. But why exactly was it sought after? Was the high school kid under suspicion? Why were the flyers in the bag in the first place? Did Aiwanger intend to share them? Or did he remove them from his brother to stop them from being shared? Aiwanger “can no longer remember” if he “passed on individual copies,” according to him.
What issues remain unanswered?
Why does the brochure mention “We hope that many will attend” near the bottom? That doesn’t sound like the work of a single individual. Was it a group endeavour? Because even hypothetical national tournaments are not a solitary endeavour, does it say “We” instead? On the other hand, the leaflet’s purpose, which was to be mocked, was that it was about “the Federal President’s Prize,” not the “Students’ Competition in German History.” a person, then.
Furthermore, it is still unknown if Hubert Aiwanger actually delivered the lecture assigned to him as punishment. He claims he was “offered” the presentation “as a way out”: I acquiesced to this under duress. That indicates that Aiwanger consented to present. Did he deliver as well?
Why was Aiwanger’s explanation so tardy?
The claim that Aiwanger had authored the pamphlet for the SZ was refuted. He had his spokesperson state that he “didn’t produce anything like that.” After the SZ report’s publication, he didn’t reveal his brother’s authorship until the following day. Why not beforehand? The allusion undoubtedly would have given his denial more weight. It was improper for Aiwanger to reveal the identity of the purported real author earlier or later.
What does the “Aiwanger case” imply for the next state election?
According to the following criteria: Will further information surface? And how attentively will the opposition follow the Aiwanger case? If not for the plenum, the “interim committee” would be the venue chosen by the SPD parliamentary party for a special session of the state legislature. The SPD does not have the necessary two-thirds of the votes on its own. The FDP and Greens have not yet made up their minds about joining the SPD. Markus Söder will also determine what happens next.
Söder does he throw out his vice?
Markus Söder is in a terrible situation as a result of the Aiwanger affair. The prime minister urged his deputy to defend himself the following morning when the accusations were made public. The statement from Aiwanger is now accessible. Will she persuade Söder? What function do the unanswered queries serve for the Prime Minister?
The CSU president has not said up so yet. He said this today while campaigning for office: “A lot is written about who creates what sort of leaflet or what I know. Then, Strauss was someone I admired. In my room, there was a big Strauss poster. Who it was against was obvious. Not a delineation, just a distance. After Aiwanger’s comments in Erding, Söder behaved similarly: He chastised him subtly but harsher than now. At the time, Söder didn’t doubt the collaboration with Aiwanger.
He does it this time, though? It is obvious that Söder will have to respond to the inquiry. There are questions around Aiwanger’s political honesty. Even the possibility that a prominent politician may be connected to this writing, according to Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Jewish religious community in Munich and Upper Bavaria, is exceedingly hazardous. A great deal of trust has been damaged.
Does the Bavarian state government’s sincerity and reliability also suffer? Söder and the CSU might be affected by the Aiwanger case if they exhibit an unwavering readiness to collaborate. However, given the weak evidence, could the CSU head have dismissed Aiwanger without forcing him to play the victim, which ultimately served Aiwanger’s interests? And what would happen to his steadfast coalition promise for the period following the state elections? Söder maintains his distance without putting himself at a distance as long as he is in this predicament.
Why is Aiwanger silent these days?
On Saturday night, Hubert Aiwanger released a written statement. Since then, he has rebuffed requests for interviews and maintained a low profile over leaflets. An unusual occurrence for Aiwanger. If he receives criticism, he often responds swiftly, sharply, and vehemently. At every chance, during interviews and on X (formerly known as Twitter).
He adopted the persona of the martyr who “cannot be banned from speaking” after receiving widespread criticism for his portrayal in Erding (“Get Democracy Back”). Although the fighting environment is comparable, with all the very significant content variations, Aiwanger is not doing that right now. It’s possible that Aiwanger isn’t sure (yet) if or how he can use the flyer narrative to his advantage during the election campaign. Or he has reservations.