Daniel Gomes, you view is a bit skewed, to say the least.
1. Of course German banks were part of the subprime problems as well as major lenders to the South. Nonetheless, Germany has a relatively small banking sector and is much more manufacturing driven, instead. The collapse in 2008 is something that Anglo-Saxon countries have to answer for - both in terms of ideology (deregulation, rating agencies, central bank policies) as well as execution. The case you are trying to make is ridiculous and borders on outright silly conspiracy theories.
2. Germany did relatively well in the recent years for a number of reasons. Internal reforms were certainly one part of it (from education system to labour market, from health care to pension insurance, from debt reduction to increasing R&D spendings. That is something Greece or Italy could have done, too. But elected not to).
There is no question that luck was another part of it (BRIC-growth enabling an export led-recovery).
There is also no question that Germany, just like Austria, The Netherlands or Finland, took advantage of the Euro to increase their competitiveness. While other nations only only took advantage of the Euro by borrowing more at Germanys low rates - either to fuel a property bubble or to hire a lot of civil servants.
It always makes me cringe a little bit if someone like Mr Soros asks others to take on "additional liabilities". I am sure that, in spite of his past and present role in the financial markets, he is still welcome to step forward and take the first step.
I am not sure how he can claim that the burden of adjustment is shifted to Southern European/debtor countries only. After all, Northern European/creditor countries adjusted in the 90s and 00s (like Sweden, Denmark or Germany) - while Southern countries went on a spending binge (for whom they and Mr Soros now blame the North).
Southern/debtor countries can count themselves lucky that Northern countries adjusted earlier. After all, who would pay for their bailout today, otherwise?
Also, Mr Soros continues to try to single out Germany. As a percentage of GDP, trade surpluses in other EU and EZ countries are in fact higher than those of Germany. So are net contributions per person to the EU households and transfers. So are benefits from the Eurozone (eg highest in Austria based on a study from Berger). Austria, Germany, Finland and The Netherlands are in the same boat and broadly share attitudes (both in terms of populace and political elites). "Burden sharing" the way Mr Soros suggests to them mean paying without limits. For others it means receiving.
Also, Mr Soros suggestion that Germany could leave and everything would be fine for the rest of the EZ is quite laughable. Does he really think that with Germany gone Finland, Austria or The Netherlands would stay - faced with paying for the bill (something Mr Soros call "burden sharing") on their own? They would leave the same second. And then what?
The headline and basic premise of the article "Lead or Leave" makes no sense at all. Not only is the "leave"-argument not thought through. The same goes for the "union"-argument. Has he ever talked to the French about giving up sovereignty? He argues that Germany refuses to accept what he thinks is reality. At the same time he puts himself, in my view, at the forefront lack of realism with many of his suggestions. Does he really think, given all the structural, political and social realities of Europe, aiming for 5%-growth p.a. to get out of debt has any relationship with reality at all?