Query:  German Unification and the "Third Way" February 1995

 
Discussion on German Unification and the "Third Way," 7 February-
24 February 1995

Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:02:41 EST

Submitted by: Clint Oberding
CJOBERDING@FLC.COLORADO.EDU
 

If there is anyone that would be able to suggest some resources for
research concerning "the problems of German Unification", I would
greatly appreciate it.

What I have in mind will deal particularly with what I have
known as "a third-way". That is to say, following the unification
there appeared to be a majority of citizens in the DDR that would
have preferred a alternative to what the FRG was proposing; a sort of
combination of democracy and socialism, with the emphasis on
preserving the accomplishments that were made under this type
of government. The focus of my work will concentrate on that
possibility.

Thank you

Clint Oberding
CJOBERDING@FLC.COLORADO.EDU

Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:34:29 EST
Subject: Re: German Reunification

Submitted by: Sam Goodfellow
SGOODFLW@MICRO.WCMO.EDU
 

Regarding the request for possible sources on the
reunification, I would suggest Gunter Grass's _Two States-One Nation_.
Grass was probably the most visible advocate of another path
(Sonderweg?). For shorter excerpts, see James and Stone, eds. _When
the Wall Came Down_. I presume that you want only English sources,
but there are collections such as _neues Forum Leipzig_ and other
German sources that give voice to the DDR diversity of opinion as
events unfolded.

Sam Goodfellow

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 07:46:28 EST
Subject: German Reunification

Submitted by: Thomas Jung
tjung@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU
 

To answer the original submission, another source (in German) should be
"Nichts wird mehr so sein, wie es war: Die Zukunft der beiden Republiken"
ed. Frank Blohm and Wolfgang Herzberg. Leipzig: Reclam Verlag.1990. 232.
(this volume provides essays on the topic from both East and West German
authors and sociologists, among others Guenther Grass, Rudolf Bahro, Robert
Jungk, Klaus Hartung, Oskar Negt, Friedrich Schorlemmer...)

Thomas
 

***************************
 

Submitted by: Craig Pepin
ckp@ACPUB.DUKE.EDU

One of the best sources for the Third way in 1989-90 is Dirk
Philipsen's _We Were the People: Voices from East Germany's
Revolutionary Autumn of 1989_ (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992).
Primarily consisting of interviews conducted between November 1989 and
April 1990, Dirk's work focuses on the real roots of popular protest
as identified by the protesters themselves, as well as their hopes
for what the end result would be. Dirk provides some of the
background text, but the interviews themselves tell the story better
than anything else.

Craig Pepin
Duke University

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 07:37:21 EST
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: Elisabeth Angele
gichicago@aol.com

With regard to an alternative approach to German unification,
the following books might be useful:

Dritter Weg. Article in: Handwoerterbuch zur deutschen Einheit. Hrsg. von
Werner Weidenfeld/Karl-Rudolf Korte. Frankfurt/M.: Campus, c1992. S.
252- 259. [includes references]

Menge, Marlies: Ohne uns laeuft nichts mehr. Die Revolution in der DDR.
Vorwort von Christa Wolf. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, c1990.
255 S. ISBN 3421065667
[enthaelt u.a. Beitraege ueber: "Wo geht hier in den Westen?" Die
DDR-Buerger machen sich Sorgen um die Zukunft ihres Staates -
Demokratiebewegung in der DDR. Plaeneschmieden fuer die neue Zeit. Die
Oppositionsgruppen debattieren den Umbau des SED-Staates]
 

Traeumen verboten. Aktuelle Stellungnahmen aus der DDR. Hrsg. von Peter
Neumann. Mit Beitragen von Wolfgang Berghofer, Manfred Gerlach, Klaus
Hoepcke, Helga Koenigsdorf, Friedrich Schorlemmer, Heinz Warzecha,
Konrad Weiss, Christa Wolf und Markus Wolf.
Goettingen: Lamuv Verlag, c1990. 126 S. ISBN 388977234X
 

Philipsen, Dirk: We were the people. Voices from East Germany
Revolutionary Autumn of 1989. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993. 417 pp.
ISBN 0822312= 948
[docments the initial democratic conception that animated the East
German= revolution]
 

Thaysen, Uwe: Der Runde Tisch oder: Wo blieb das Volk? Der Weg in die
Demokratie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, c1990. 215 S. ISBN 3531122282
[behandelt u.a. den Verfassungsentwurf fuer einen "dritten Weg"]
 

For general background information and reference:

German Reunification. A reference guide and commentary. Longman, c1992. 3=
11 pp. ISBN 0582096502

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 08:57:28 EST
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: Stephen MacDonald
<MACDONAS@dickinson.edu>
 
 

I am struck by the similarity between some of the current lamentation about a
neglected "third way" in 1989-90 and the both sorrowful and bitter complaints
raised in 1918-19 (and later) about the lost opportunity of the German
Revolution of 1918 when, so it was claimed, the SPD had squandered an
opportunity to establish a genuine democracy in Germany by adopting a
conventional parliamentary regime (bound to fail, it seemed) instead of a
populist democracy that linked parliametary strctures and soldiers and
workers councils. Arthur Rosenberg was describing this road not taken as the
"third way" between a parliamentary and soviet regime by the 1930s. By 1977
Karl Dietrich Bracher was dismissing the mystique of the "third way" as an
"in part nostalgic, in part agitational historical legend." Another legend
in the making, perhaps.
 
 

Steve MacDonald.

Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:08:40 EST
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: Walter Felscher
<walter.felscher@uni-tuebingen.de>
 

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Mr. Oberding wrote:

> What I have in mind will deal particularly with what I have
> known as "a third-way". That is to say, following the unification
> there appeared to be a majority of citizens in the DDR that would
> have preferred a alternative to what the FRG was proposing; a sort of
> combination of democracy and socialism, with the emphasis on
> preserving the accomplishments that were made under this type
> of government. The focus of my work will concentrate on that
> possibility.
 
 

Concerning the "majority of citizens in the DDR" :

The East German election of March 18, 1990, gave the
majority to the party which had clearly proposed to join
the Federal Republic.

This fact proves wrong any "appearance" that a majority
would have preferred otherwise.
 

Concerning a "third-way":

The terminus of a "third way" - namely between "capitalism"
and communism - is an old topos of the West German Left
going back to the early 50s and the debates about West
Germany's integration with the West - i.e. into the Common
Market and into NATO. At that time, it was supported by
the SPD but voted down by the electorate, and only after
the SPD accepted its Godesberg program of 1959 became it
acceptable to the majority of voters. Since then, both
large parties have supported Western integration and
rejected a "third way".

After the cultural revolution of 1968, voices criticizing
both the Western economic integration and the military
integration into NATO made themselves heard again, and
over the years acquired a noticeable share in the media.
As for political organization, they took over the
ecological Green party. It is from this environment that,
over the last decade, we have often enough read and heard
the shouts "Nicht diese Republik !" (= not *this* republic
[which presently there is]). The silent majority of the
electorate does, in spite of their strong media presence,
not honour the aims the of the Green-Third-Way - the
latest opinion poll from Allensbach lists around 10% of
Green votes were federal elections to be held now.

If I look at the authors of some of the literature
recommended by American participants on this topic, I
find from West Germany the long-time proponents of a West
German Third Way such as

G.Grass, 40 years ago a writer, turned political
commentator, who left the SPD since it did not support
his radicalism,

R.Bahro, expelled many years ago from the DDR where he
had proposed a new, more rigorous and austerity-prepared
socialism,

R.Jungk, for decades a journalistic anti-atom activist,

O.Negt, sociologist in Franfurt, student of Habermas,
in 1969 together with late H.J.Krahl the principal
theorist of the cultural revolution,

joined from East Germany by

Christa Wolf, prominent DDR author advocating socialism
and sensibility,

W.Berghofer, SED-mayor of Dresden,

K.Hoepke, vice-minister for "Kultur" of the DDR in
charge of literature

K.Weiss, DDR movie director

Markus Wolff, head of foreign espionage in the MfS .

forming a union between (1) those who, for more than 25
years, have been calling to do away, on a Third Way, with
the structures of the Federal Republic from within it,
and (2) a group from the DDR-intelligentsia looking to
preserve at least a theoretical justification for a
socialist structured state whose criminal existence they
once had no qualms to support.

For the sake of historical elucidation, the memoirs of
Markus Wolff (would they ever be openly written) or of
Klaus Hoepke (would they ever be openly written) would be
valuable, just as Goebbels' diaries or, to name an
author: Hans Grimm's memoirs - are valuable for the NS-
period. But what we obtain from these authors is not an
analysis of the past, and on the part of the West German
Third-Way-proponents it rather amounts to the proposal
to try it once again, the fairy tale about the socialism
"with a human face". In so far, they are not reliable
witnesses, much less advisors for the future. And the
claim to find support among a majority is just as
unfounded as were the analogous claims of the newspaperlet
calling itself 'The Masses'.
 

Walter Felscher

Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 13:56:04 EST
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way/3 comments

Submitted by: Thomas Jung
tjung@STUDENTS.WISC.EDU
 

On Febr. 11, Mr. Felscher from Tuebingen wrote:

>Concerning the "majority of citizens in the DDR" :
> The East German election of March 18, 1990, gave the
> majority to the party which had clearly proposed to join
> the Federal Republic.
> This fact proves wrong any "appearance" that a majority
> would have preferred otherwise...
 

In his view on the events that followed the opening of the wall and
preceded the 1990 election (only 5 months is a very short time to figure
out what one really wants after everything went "down the drain"), Mr.
Felscher did not bother to consider the tremendous effect of the West
German media (which are sometimes not far from propaganda, especially
around election-times) and the very confusing influence of the "golden"
aspects of the capitalism most East German never before had a chance to
experience. Later elections, indeed, proved that the "majority" was
influenced (if not mislead) by the "Einheiskanzler" waving DM-bills and
promising something that was not to be realized by any German
goverment (including a new truly democratic East German one). Latest
elections in the five so called new federal states indicated, that
this "majority" has finally realized what reality under the new
system is like and changed their mind. Therefore, it appears to be
not only a utopian dream of "some intellectuals" but a challenge for
all Germany, including - with all due respect - Mr. Felscher, to find
a new "third way" that leads out of the "dead end" capitalism in all
its social, ecological and moral incapabilities is projecting.
 

Thomas

**********************************************************************

Submitted by: Eric D Weitz
<weitz@stolaf.edu>
 

Walter Felscher seems to have enjoyed the opportunity to assemble his
personal cast of villains, the advocates of a "third way" in the post-
1949 Germanys. I would suggest that the terminology and concepts of a
third way have a longer and far more diverse historical lineage in
Germany, and should not be so abruptly dismissed as the misguided
socialists notions of discontented intellectuals. The term itself,
so far as I know, goes back to the Revolution of 1918/19 and was
associated with the USPD's efforts to form some kind of council
republic--admittedly, a diffuse term but one that had widespread (if
not majority) resonance among workers. Precursors to this are
evident in the pre-World War I localist and sometimes syndicalist-
minded trade unions, especially in Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. (See
especially Dirk Mueller's work.) Probably the best mass examples of
support for third ways were the Berlin factory movement in January
1919, designed to head off labor's civil war, and the socialization
strikes of 1919.

Third ways were also widely current in the immediate post-World War
II years--Felscher and others would probably like to forget the
widespread support for socialization and some of the other political
formulations of even the CDU, let alone the SPD and KPD/SED. Suffice
it to say that third ways have had particular resonance when existing
state systems collapse or are on the verge of collapse.--1918/19,
1945/46, 1989/90. Third ways have failed to attain majority support
or to become political reality. But should ideas and movements aimed
at deepening democratic practices be so disparaged simply because
they have not triumphed? Felscher draws a curious connection between
political concepts and historical development. And third ways have
often had suppport far beyond the intellectuals whom he lists--
indeed, in the workers and soldiers councils of 1918/19, the Antifas
of 1945, the various citizens movements of 1989/90 in the DDR one can
find the popular expressions of third ways--including more diverse
memberships, at least in the last two, than many other political
formations in Germany. The story is a lot more complex than
Felscher indicates.
 

Eric D. Weitz
History Department
St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN 55057
USA
(507) 646-3167
e-mail: weitz@stolaf.edu
 

**********************************************************************

Submitted by: Helen Liebel-weckowicz
<hliebelw@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
 

Walter Felscher has summarized the Third Way discussion recently. The
term "Third Way" has been employed before. It was used during the
Congress of Vienna, as Triad, to about 1848, to refer to the
existence of a third grouping in German politics. (Small states and
princes in the south and west).
 

The 1949 Constitution, Grundgesetz, has an article to stipulate
that the eastern sector regions can, by accepting the constitution,
join the Federal Republic. This was done in 1990. The Grundgesetz
does not offer an economic system, although the one existing in the
east resulted from a one-party dictatorship, hence not in keeping
with the western Grundgesetz. Once the Grundgesetz was accepted as
the basic law for both Germanies, the governments elected under it
could determine the economic policies and structures. This led to the
present system, as Herr Felscher has pointed out.

H.Liebel-W.

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 07:12:32 EST
Subject: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: Thomas Jung
tjung@students.wisc.edu
 

On Feb. 12, Helen Liebel-Weckowicz wrote:

>The 1949 Constitution, Grundgesetz, has an article to stipulate
>that the eastern sector regions can, by accepting the constitution,
>join the Federal Republic....Once the Grundgesetz was accepted as
>the basic law for both Germanies...
 

Yet, as far as I remember, there was also - in the very same Grundgesetz -
a paragraph saying, that in case of an unification the German people should
get the opportunity to vote on a NEW constitution for the new Germany. Am I
wrong? So, what happened to this paragraph in 1990 was that it was
dropped/forgotten all of a sudden. So far, there is not a new constitution
- revised by all citizens - in effect.

mfg,
Thomas Jung
UW-Madison

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:42:53 EST
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: Gerald R. Kleinfeld
<ATGRK@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>
 

To the question by Thomas Jung of Wisconsin: The Basic Law provides,
in Article 23, for the accession of other parts of Germany, under
which case, the Basic Law would apply to those parts of Germany which
accede. Article 146 provides that the Basic Law may be replaced by a
constitution when the German people choose to enact one.

The discussion in 1990 over adding the German Democratic Republic to
the Federal Republic of Germany was a matter of both sides discussing
the issue, whether to use Article 23 or Article 146. Within the FRG,
it was more a discussion amongst the populace than a practical
matter, since there was a fairly general consensus that the majority
of the population were happy with the Basic Law pretty much as it
stood, and felt that Germany's neighbors were more likely to accept a
unified (e.g. much larger) Germany if it were a Germany under a
constitution they knew was democratic and functional rather than a
pig in a poke so to speak.

Some west Germans were amenable to accepting some changes in the GG,
and some wanted to include right to work or environmental concerns,
etc, while others thought this might be a good opportunity to make
the changes that they specifically wanted. However, general opinion
was that it should not be basically altered. In the GDR, the majority
of the population came to realize that waiting for a constitutional
revision under a commission, followed by a vote, or whatever, would
absolutely certainly delay unification, and the quickest way to get
in was Article 23. Afterwards, there could be discussions on changes
in the Constitution. Some westerners felt that 63 millions liked the
GG, and that 16 million oughtn't make changes the 63 million didn't
want, in any case. The east Germans pressed the issue by electing a
Volkskammer that wanted in right away under Article 23. (see all
polls, election data 1990). A treaty was negotiated. (see memoirs,
treaty, etc.)

For information about the status of the constitutional discussions,
you can ask Rupert Scholz, MdB. G. R. Kleinfeld
 

Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 14:11:15 EST
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: William M. Thomas
wmthomas@strauss.udel.edu
 
 
 

I think in the original post on this topic, some source material was
requested. Here's a short list of material I've come across that might help.
 
 

Bohley, Ba"rbel, Ju"rgen Fuchs, Katja Havemann, et al., eds. _40 Jahre
DDR. . .und die Bu"rger melden sich zu Wort_. Frankfurt a.M.,
1989.

Bryson, Philip J. and Manfred Melzer. _The End of the East German
Economy: From Honecker to Reunification_. New York, 1991.

Dennis, Mike. "Civil Society, Opposition, and the End of the GDR." In
_Studies in GDR Culture and Society 11/12: The End of the GDR
and the Problems of Integration_, New Hampshire Symposium on the
German Democratic Republic, 1-18. Lanham, MD, 1993.

Glaessner, Gert-Joachim. _Der schwierige Weg zur Demokratie: Vom Ende
der DDR zur deutschen Einheit_. Opladen, 1991.

Haufe Gerda and Karl Bruckmeier, eds. _Die Bu"rgerbewegung in der DDR
und in den ostdeutschen Bundesla"ndern_. Opladen, 1993.

Jarausch, Konrad H. _The Rush to German Unity_. New York & Oxford, 1994.

Lau, Karin and Karlheinz, eds. _Deutschland auf dem Weg zur Einheit:
Dokumente einer Revolution_. Braunschweig, 1990.

Ministerium fu"r nationale Verteidigung, Verwaltung staatsbu"rgerliche
Arbeit. _Dokumente zur Einheit Deutschlands, 1945-1990_.
Strausburg, DDR, 1990.

Przybylski, Peter. _Tatort Politbu"ro_. 2 vols. Berlin, 1991.

Ru"ddenklau, Wolfgang. _Sto"renfried: DDR-opposition, 1986-1989_.
Berlin, 1992.

die tageszeitung. _DDR Journal zur Novemberrevolution, August bis
Dezember 1989: Vom Ausreisen bis zum Einreissen der Mauer_.
Berlin, 1989.

Will Thomas
William M. Thomas
wmthomas@strauss.udel.edu
Dept of History, U of Delaware
 

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:49:12 -0600
Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Submitted by: Angelika Meyer <ameyer@leland.stanford.edu>
 

> Gerald R. Kleinfeld <ATGRK@asuvm.inre.asu.edu> wrote:
>
>The discussion in 1990 over adding the German Democratic Republic to
>the Federal Republic of Germany was a matter of both sides discussing
>the issue, whether to use Article 23 or Article 146. Within the FRG,
>it was more a discussion amongst the populace than a practical
>matter, since there was a fairly general consensus that the majority
>of the population were happy with the Basic Law pretty much as it
>stood, and felt that Germany's neighbors were more likely to accept a
>unified (e.g. much larger) Germany if it were a Germany under a
>constitution they knew was democratic and functional rather than a
>pig in a poke so to speak.

It should be noted that the German Basic Law has been changed over and over
since its inception. (Unlike the US constitution, it is not a fixed
historical document to which amendments are made. If necessary, paragraphs
of the Basic law are removed, rewritten, or new ones inserted, etc.) So,
the Basic Law is a document that has grown over more than forty years,
constantly adapting to changing needs, and thus was very well equipped to
adjust to the changed situation of unification.

There really was no good reason to scrap it and write a new constitution
from scratch (except that this might have made people in the former GDR
psychologically more comfortable - the PDS in those days tried to get a
lot of mileage out of the rhetoric of "annexation.")

Angelika Meyer
ameyer@leland.stanford.edu
 

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:42:39 -0600
Subject: Re: U.S. vs. FRG

Submitted by: David A. Meier <DAVID_MEIER@DSU1.DSU.NODAK.EDU>

Subject: Re: German Unification/3rd way

Angelika Meyer took Gerald R. Kleinfeld to task for overly
simplifyinging the German constitutional issue(s) before and after
unification. Meyer's criticism has a very Germanic ring about it --
while Kleinfeld certainly sounds like he's responding to an American
audience when he saids "that the majority of the population were
happy with the Basic Law pretty much as it stood, and felt that
Germany's neighbors were more likely to accept a unified (e.g. much
larger) Germany if it were a Germany under a constitution they knew
was democratic and functional rather than a pig in a poke so to
speak."

Meyer's observation rested with "Unlike the US constitution, it [GG] is
not a fixed historical document to which amendments are made. If
necessary, paragraphs of the Basic law are removed, rewritten, or
new ones inserted, etc.) So, the Basic Law is a document that has
grown over more than forty years, constantly adapting to changing
needs, and thus was very well equipped to adjust to the changed
situation of unification." With respect due to email over-
simplifications, Meyer is somehow trying to say that the GG changed
in some substantial ways with time while the American Consitution
did not.

I think it prudent to remind ourselves first that the similarities
between the American and German constitutions (and consequently
the governing systems) are close enough to generate numerous
comparative studies, i.e., Uwe Thaysen's (et al) _The U.S. Congress
and the German Bundestag_ (Westview Press, 1990). Comparisons
also include the judicial systems -- a spin-off effect of Donald
Kommer's _The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic
of Germany_ (Duke University Press, 1989).

But what of the major changes alluded to by Meyer? With the
exception of the changes implemented following unification, the
substance of the GG remained unaltered despite the numerous
modifications. Differences between the U.S. and German systems
exist primarily in the governing structure and the functioning of the
political parties. The U.S. has no real equivalent to the
Parteiengesetz or the Bundeswahlgesetz while the FRG has opted for
a weak president in favor of a chancellor limited by parliamentary
considerations. Tehnically seen, one could claim that the GG is a
new and improved version of the Weimar constitution. Just as
American history has resulted in substantial changes in the
application of the Constitution to society (thinking only of the end of
slavery as a model), so too has German history influenced
constitutional thinking, i.e., no more Art. 48.
 

*******************************************
Dr. David A. Meier
Assistant Professor of History
Department of History
291 Campus Drive
Dickinson State University
Dickinson, ND 58601-4896
Phone: 1-701-227-2116
Fax: 1-701-227-2006
Email: David_Meier@DSU1.DSU.NODAK.EDU
********************************************
 

Information provider:
Unit: H-Net program at UIC History Department
Email: H-Net@uicvm.uic.edu
Posted: 25 Feb 1995
.
 

Return to the H-German Homepage

Send comments and questions to H-German Editors
Copyright © 1995-2000, H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine
Click Here for an Internet Citation Guide.