Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:06:07.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ostpolitik in the West German 1969 Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Klaus von Beyme
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF WEST GERMANY MAY BE CHARACTERIZED as a ‘penetrated system’, a notion which has been developed by James Rosenau. After the restoration of German sovereignty in 1955 , Rosenau's definition seemed less applicable to Germany, since it was defined by the fact that ‘non-members of a national society’ . . . ‘participate directly and authoritatively, through actions taken jointly with the society's members, either in the allocation of its values or in the mobilization of support on behalf of its goals’. Wolfram Hanrieder tried to improve the applicability of the notion of ‘penetrated system’ to Germany by broadening the scope of the concept; he no longer restricted it to ‘direct and authoritative participation of non-members’. This concept fitted the German situation better than G. Modelski's model of ‘internal war’ which has been applied to Germany by some younger scholars since the process of the division of Germany was more or less a result of the action of the great powers and only rather late was it consciously endorsed by decision makers in both parts of Germany.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1970 , pp. 193 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rosenau, J. N., ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’ in Farrel, T. B. (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, Evanston 1966 (27–92), p. 65.Google Scholar

2 Hanrieder, W. F., West German Foreign Policy, 1249–1965, Stanford 1967, p. 228.Google Scholar

3 P. Pawelka, Das Deutschlandproblem im Spannungsfeld zwischen der Bundes-republik Deutschland and den Vereinten Nationen. Ph. Diss. Tübingen, 1969, p. 6.

4 ‘Entwurf eines Generalvertrages zwischen der BRD und der DDR vom 24. Jan. 1969’, in Siewert, R. and Bilstein, H., Gesamtdeutsche Kontakte. Erfahrungen mit Parteien- und Regierungsdialog, Opladen 1969, p. 125.Google Scholar

5 Jäckel, H., Wahlführer, 196p. Politiker, Parieien, Programme, Munich, 1969, pp. 174 et seq.Google Scholar

6 Auszug aus dem Protokoll, Europa Archiv, 1969, No. 13, p. D. 303.

7 Der Spiegel, 7 April 1969, p. 27.

8 Birrenbach, Kurt et al., Aussenpolitik nach der Wahl des 6. Bundestages. Opladeno, 1969, p. 105.Google Scholar

9 Politisehe Analyse undPrognose (PAP), Folge 7,1969, p. 9.

10 Brandt, Willy, AuJSenpolitik, Deutschlandpolitik, Europapolitik. Berlin, 1968, p. 145.Google Scholar

11 Quoted in Theo Sommer: ‘Geteilt, aber nicht getrennt’, Die Zeit, 17 October 1969 (53–59), p. 56.

12 Text in Siewert-Bilstein, op. cit., p. 53.

13 Cf. Kaack, Heino, Wer kommt in den bundestag? Opladen, 1969, pp. 49 et seq.Google Scholar

14 Beschluß des SPD-Parteitages, in Siewert-Bilstein, op. cit., p. 124.

15 FAZ, 29 October 1969, p. 6.

16 Theo Sommer, ‘Deutsch sein zu zweit’, Die Zeit. 31 October 1969, p. 3.

17 An exception is Vali, Ferenc A., The Quest for a United Germany. Baltimore, 1967, pp. 284, 290.Google Scholar For the changing attitudes of the Western powers towards German reunification see Planck, Charles R., The Changing Status of German Reunification in Western Diplomacy, 1955–1966, Baltimore, 1967.Google Scholar Windsor, P., German Reunification, London, 1969.Google Scholar

18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 30 October 1969, p. 1.

19 Albertz, Heinrich – Goldschmidt, Dietrich (eds.), Konsequenzen oder Thesen, Analysen und Dokumente zur Deutschlandpolitik, Hamburg, 1969, pp. 8 et seq.Google Scholar

20 FAZ, 5 November 1969, p. 3.

21 Rudolf Hrbek, Die SPD, Deutscbland undEuropa, Ph. Diss. Tübingen, 1968.

22 The discrimination against Brandt as an émigré who appeared in a Norwegian uniform in Nuremberg after the war is as long-lived as the discrimination against the new chancellor for his humble and illegitimate birth.

23 A nationalistic supporter of Hitler who concentrated large shares of the German press in his hands during the Weimar Republic.

24 Südmstpresse, 14 October 1969.

25 The CDU remained the strongest party, but lost 1·6 per cent of its votes in 1965, whereas the SPD gained 3·1 per cent.

26 There was a solemn renunciation of a revision of frontiers in Alsace-Lorraine. And there would have been a renunciation of the Saar, had not the Saar population rejected the treaty with France, which Adenauer had recommended beforehand that the plebiscite should approve.

27 The Netherlands provide the only example of Germany recovering any of her territorial losses. They gave back to West Germany the city of Elten, which was cut off after the war.

28 FAZ, 6 November 1969, p. 1.

29 Document in Henkys, Reinhard (ed.), Deutschland und die östlichen Nach-barn. Beiträge zu einer evangelischen Denkschrift, Berlin, 1966, pp. 176 et seq.Google Scholar

30 Deutsch, Karl W., Arms Control and Atlantic Alliance: Europe Faces Coming Policy Decisions, New York, London, 1967, p. 68.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., p. 110.

32 Ibid., p. 101. German satisfaction with the status quo already struck the Civic Culture Group under Almond and Verba, when they compared it with Italy. ( Almond, G. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture, Princeton, 1963, pp. 40 et passim CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Perhaps it is methodologically naive to ask first whether people are satisfied with the system and with its foreign policy and then, after getting a positive answer, still to expect that the interviewer should look for ‘drastic changes’.

33 Noelle, Elisabeth and Neumann, Erich P., Jahrbuch der öffentlichen Meinung, Allensbach Bonn, 1967, p. 387.Google Scholar

34 Rudolf Wildenmann, Eliten in der Bundesrepublik. Eine sozialmssenschaftlicbe Untersuchung über Einslelhmgen führender Positionsträger zitr Politik und Demokratie (unpublished) Mannheim, August 1968, pp. 168 et seq.

35 Deutsch, op. cit., p. 116.

36 Informationsdienst, Institut fur Demoskopie, Allensbach, March 1960.

37 PAP. op. cit., December 1968, pp. 9 et seq, February 1969, pp. 12 et seq.

38 Text of the declaration in Europa Archiv, 1969, No. 8, p. D. 181.

39 Siewert-Bilstein, op. cit., p. 39.

40 Quoted by Théo Sommer, ‘Finte oder nur gezielter Wink? Das SED-Regime fordert Bonn zum Gcsprâch auf’, Die Zeit, 17 October 1969, p. 1.

41 Sommer, op. cit., p. 59.

42 Nettes Detttscbland, 1 November 1969.

43 Hartmut Jäckcl, ‘Innerdeutsches Gegeneinander oder Nebeneinander?’ in K. Birrenbach, et al., Außienpolitik nach der Wahl des 6. Bundestages, Opladen, 1969, p. 107.

44 H. Stehle, ‘Jawohl zu Verhandlungen, Ein Interview mit dem polnischen Außenminister,’ Die Zeit, 17 October 1969, p. 5.

45 Izyestiya, 22 October 1969, p. 2.

46 Der Spiegel, 1969, No. 44, p. 124.

47 Pravda, 23 October 1969, p. 5.

48 H. Pörzgen, ‘Bonn ist der Hauptadressat. Moskau setzt aile Hebel für den Plan einer europäischen Sicherheitskonferenz in Bewegung’, FAZ, 31 October 1969, p. 2.

49 Compare Niethammer, Lutz, Angepaßiter Faschismus, Frankfurt 1969 Google Scholar; even if the NPD were more dangerous, West German society has no parallel for a rightist intelligentsia, para-military organizations and the authoritarian political culture of the Weimar Republic. Thus we must be ready for a long process of communication not only between the political elites but especially between the peoples, in order to overcome the old prejudices.

50 Bromke, Adam and Uren, Philip E. (eds.), The Communist States and the West, New York, London 1967, p. 98 Google Scholar; Schulz, Eberhard and Schulz, Hans-Dieter, Braucht der Osten die DDR?, Opladen 1968, p. 98.Google Scholar

51 Cf., Alberts, op. cit., p. 75.

52 Christian Ludz, Peter, Parteielite im Wandel, Cologne, Opladen, 1968, pp. 324 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a critique of some propositions of Ludz’s, see Richert, Ernst, Die DDK-Elite – oder unser Partner von morgen? Hamburg, 1968, p. 113.Google Scholar

53 Pawelka, op. cit., p. 234.

54 Niethammer, op. cit., p. 247.

55 Jäckel, op. cit., p. 162.