Air University Review, May-June 1968

Whither Germany?

Dr. Chester V. Easum

Dr. Wilhelm Wolfgang Schütz is an acknowledged evangelist for the idea of reunification of Germany. The title of his recent book, Rethinking German Policy,* is a provocative come-on: What German policy, theirs or ours? The policy of Germans with regard to reunification, or the policy of the rest of the world with respect to the same problem? If the former, then the policy of which Germans, those of the Federal Republic of Germany (“western” Germany) or those of the so-called German Democratic Republic (“eastern” Germany)? And as a matter of fact, despite the plenitude of official statements about the attitudes of people living in the two divided Germanys, would it be more accurate to use another plural and speak of two German peoples rather than one, even yet?

For the past ten years Dr. Schütz has been chairman of the board of trustees of an organization which calls itself “Germany Indivisible.” With true missionary zeal and faith in the solvent power of right reason, he persists in the hope that, as reunification can take place only with the consent and cooperation of Soviet Russia and the United States, these two parties can and must soon see the light and come to the point of mutual consent and cooperation to that end, in realization of their own interest. This would mean not the conquest, annexation, or absorption of one part of old Germany by the other but rather the voluntary political reunion of both Germanys on a basis of complete equality and of mutual respect and consent. Differences could be amicably worked out for the sake of the enormous mutual advantages to be derived from the reconstructed federal union. A convincing act of faith is presupposed.

There is an enormous amount of hypothetical reasoning and writing here. “Is it not reasonable to suppose that. . . ?” “This would naturally lead to . . .” “This should. . .” “This must. . .” There is also exhortation here, in plenty.

The author stresses the point that neighboring states need have no fear of a Germany so reconstituted. Such a new Germany would be a peace-loving state not only in the nature of things, having been formed by a process of peaceable change without the use of nuclear weapons, possessing and seeking none, but by its own nature. It would be, of course, a loyal member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and of the United Nations, having been reconstituted within that framework.

In an attempt to make his proposals appear as practical and specific as possible, Dr. Schütz proposes that the term of the German federal parliament (Bundestag) be extended to five years, to make it coincide with the federal president’s term in office, and that a series of ten-year plans be drawn up to serve as Germany’s contribution to the reform of NATO, on the assumption that there will be some withdrawals from NATO in 1969.

The author further suggests that Germany might well recommend to the United Nations the appointment there of a high commissioner for human rights and that the U.N. send medical service units to trouble spots such as, in 1967, Cyprus. (p. 72) He further suggests the active expansion of a system of treaties of recognition and friendship with the emerging nations on a basis of self-determination. (p. 76)

His final general proposals are ambitious indeed. “The objective, therefore, is a peace-conference for World War II and also between the NATO and Warsaw Treaty nations. The neutral European powers should be invited to observe the proceedings and to exercise a moderating influence, and the Secretary General of the United Nations should be asked to participate. This would enhance the attention paid to the principles of self-determination and human rights. . . .” (Emphasis mine.) (p. 123)

“Does it not follow from this that the disarmament conference at Geneva and the Disarmament Commission at New York may offer one of the channels for our proposals?” (p. 124)

“We should even consider how far it might be possible to extend a world disarmament conference into a world peace conference.” (p. 132)

To me, the author’s “rethinking” seems to consist of some stubbornly unrealistic, continued or repeated, wishful thinking of the pacifist one-worlders of the past quarter of a century. There is nothing that I recognize as a really new or practical approach.

A summary review of the hardy, though to me rather unrealistic, optimism of this book brings it into sharp contrast with the pessimistic, though to me more realistic, position of the German philosopher Karl Jaspers.** The German original of the Jaspers book Wohin treibt die Bundesrepublik? was more enthusiastically greeted by the German reading public, which is largely composed of persons free from official responsibility, than by those holding public office, who are sobered or rendered more conservative—depending somewhat upon the point of view.

Professor Jaspers points out that many of the specific provisions of the constitution of the federal republic were written with an eye to avoiding the weaknesses of the Weimar constitution, such as multiplicity of parties by fission due to the theoretically democratic system of proportional representation, and the irresponsible dismissal of a chancellor without a designated successor. Such precautionary checks upon the free expression of the people’s political will, he says, have outlived their usefulness. The Hallstein doctrine, he says further, is also useless.

Without suggesting how the popular will is to find expression except through parties, the author deplores what he regards as the present tendency of the professional party leaders to form self-perpetuating salaried oligarchies which make up the party lists of candidates with less and less reference to the passive party memberships—a process by which the parties committed suicide once before once before.

Most of all the voice of the German Jeremiah deplores what he calls the “touch of mendacity” (p. 59) that poisons German political life, at the center of which is the great fundamental lie “that the German were never really Nazis,”  whereas according to him, “all Germans have to answer for the fact of Hitler’s rule.”

To Jaspers, what is done is done. The Oder-Neisse Line is final. The one who threatens the peace is the one who wants to change existing boundaries, not the one who wants to preserve them. The special status of the Soviet zone of occupation is final as long as Russia wants it to be. Germany must cease to threaten her eastern neighbors and must recognize that from their point of view she has an evil past to live down before they will cease to regard reunification as a threat.

The reader’s sympathies seem likely to ride along with the advocates of reunification; but any short-term bets will probably be placed on Professor Jaspers.

Lincoln, Nebraska

*WiIhelm Wolfgang Schütz, Rethinking German Policy: New Approaches to Reunification (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967, $5.50), 154 pp.

**Karl Jaspers, The Future of Germany, trans, and ed. E. B. Ashton, Foreword by Hannah Arendt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967, $4.95), xvii and 173 pp.

Contributor

Dr. Chester V. Easum (Rhodes Scholar; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is Visiting Professor, Department of History, University of Nebraska. After teaching at Culver Military Academy, he was at the University of Wisconsin from 1930 to 1964, when the became Emeritus Professor of History. He was Visiting Professor, Hiram College, 1965-67. He served as an Infantry officer during World War I and with the Army of Occupation in Germany. He returned to Germany 1936-37, to conduct research, and again as a U.S. Cultural Attaché, 1954-56. He is author of Prince Henry of Prussia, Brother of Frederick the Great (1942) and of Half Century of Conflict (1952).

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor