I am not familiar enough with the situation in the North American continent to be able to comment on it.
As for the status of the European forrests in general and the German ones in particular, Spiecker was correct in his observations that there is more new growth than used to be. However, that is due to the fact that the more sensitive coniferes have gradually died over the last 40 years and the gaps they left are being filled with what I believe is called Hardwood in English (trees and shrubs with soft, wide leaves instead of needle-like ones: Dicotylendones).
That the deforrestation through acid rain has stopped is also correct. Simply for the reason, though, that all damaged trees have died by now and there are only such species left that are less sensitive to a low pH. Also, there has been a massive reforrestatiuon effort in the last decades, unparallelled in (German) history (2000 years after all). Last but not least the acid rain itself has become less (thank heavens! - pardon the pun).
This is a wonderful example how one can draw dangerousely inacurate conclusions from facts if one only looks at the results without questioning what lead to them.
, thank you for this excellent analysis. Could you please explain to me the role New Orleans played in WW2? Apart from it being a town mostly inhabited by people of French and African origin, having been a major Mississippi-harbour and cotton market in the 1800s and having excellent cuisine and music I've never heard anything of that town until that flood they suffered about a decade ago. It might be wiser, though, to take that to PM as it'd lead the thread very far off-topic.