OK, that is a more cogent explanation. However, it does not take into account (1) the exchange rates that the Euro countries used when they entered the Euro. I'd argue that Germany's DM <-> Euro exchange rate was quite uncompetitive in 1 January 1999, making German products too expensive. (2) It does not take into account the symmetry of the situation: the Euro also made it impossible for Germany to use devaluation of its currency as a competitive advantage. (3) industries that need devaluation have a serious health problem anyway. (4) Germany and Greece have almost no competing industries, so the ability to do competitive devaluation does not play a role in the competition between Germany and Greece. (5) It does not take into account the distribution of power in the ECB where Germany has the same number of votes as Greece or Malta. The first two ECB presidents were French and Italian, consequently the ECB makes policies mostly in the interest of the southern members. The fact that several German ECB members and one head of state have already resigned over crazy ECB decisions speaks volumes.
Most of these points are irrelevant to the point that was made by the commenter above, that claimed that Germany was not forced into the Euro, but wanted it because they saw it in part as a means to take away devaluations as a tool of other EU nations.
I don't know if that's true or not - I didn't follow the debate that closely - but the arguments you are giving here are either besides the point for that kind of decision, or seems like plausible concessions of a party that sees itself as strong enough to be able to win big if devaluations are taken off the table.
