Vantage Point

Growing up, I always remember my dad saying this one phrase, "There are always three sides to any story. Yours, the other persons and the truth." And in the wake of 1989 in Eastern Europe, that is exactly what Timothy Garton Ash seeks to do in his book, The Magic Lantern; is to offer a vantage point and truthfully detail the events that took place in four separate countries, yet also simultaneously.

In 2008, there was a political action thriller, Vantage Point, that told the attempted assassination of the American president through several perspectives. Instead, in Ash's novel, rather than the perspectives of several people, he details the perspectives of four different countries: Poland, Hungary, Germany and Czechoslovakia. All of these countries, more specifically the cities of Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and Prague, are all undergoing some form of political 'refolution', as Ash describes.

Each city is undergoing its own separate form of 'refolution', and while these cities share aspects to this in common, there is also distinct and marked differences between them all. And the one thing to keep being reminded of, was that all of these perspectives coexist within the European theater. As Ash lays the groundwork for outlining the events in each of these cities, as the climax of their political structure seems to mount, he distinctly makes a point to compare and contrast the events between these different cities, especially in Prague as he is dicussing the role of the Catholic church and how this is such "a striking contrast with Poland" (96).



In Poland, the political territory is such that one of the biggest waves of change to the country was that of free elections. General Jaruzelski commented, "It was the first time that voters could choose freely. That freedom was used for the crossing-off of those who were in power until now" (32).  Election day, June 4, 1989, was “a landmark not only in the post-war history of Poland, not merely in the history of Eastern Europe, but in the communist world” (32). Ash also presents the question of what Solidarity truly was in the context of the summer 1989.  He outlines four specific aspects to Solidarity that were present.  “First, it was Lech Walesa, whose personal popularity and authority had reached extraordinary heights, reinforced, of course by every meeting with a President Mitterand or Bush. Second, it was the parliamentary group- 161 out of 460 members of the sejm, ninety-nine out of 100 members if the Senate.  These new parliamentarians personally represented very different tendencies and traditions, but on June 4 they were all- social democrat or conservative, Christian or Jew, bright or dull-elected because they were the candidates of Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Defeated communist candidates remarked bitterly that if a monkey had stood as an official Solidarity-opposition candidate he would have been elected; and there is probably some truth in that. Third, Solidarity was the loose structure of national, regional and local Citizens’ Committees which actually organized the election campaign.  Beside veteran Solidarity activists these Citizens’ Committees were joined by many people- doctors, engineers, teachers, journalists- who had not been so active before. They were the essential constituency organizations for the new members of parliament, and, as it were, the local nurseries of Poland’s seedling democracy.  Finally, there was Solidarity as what it had been first: a trade union.  But Solidarity- as- trade union had grown only sluggishly since its (re-) registration in April.  There was none of the exuberant dynamism of autumn 1980, when an estimated three million people joined the newborn union within a fortnight” (33-34). The emergence of this democracy within Warsaw and the greater Poland birthed political transition with the agendas of Lech Walesa and other leaders who sought to have their own personal visions into this new government.  According to Joanna Szcxepkowska, who was a famous Polish actress, announced to television viewers that “on 4 June 1989, communism in Poland ended” (45).  And Ash wrote, “To say that communism in Poland ended on that day was a poetic exaggeration.  But the end of communism in Poland followed directly from the free vote of the Polish people on that glorious fourth of June” (46).

 

 



In contrast to Poland, “Hungary was a funeral, particularly the funeral of Imre Nagy, a mere thirty one years after his death” (47).  As a former prime minister in Hungary who led the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and was later executed, Nagy had a profound impact on the climate of Budapest within the context of the revolution and "pronouncing 1956 to have been not, as previously maintained, a counter-revolution', but rather a 'popular uprising against an oligarchic rule that had debased the nation' (49).  The head of the Budapest Workers' Councils in 1956, Sandor Racz, proposed a question of, "Will freedom for Hungary grow from the blood of these heroes?" (50).  And in response to this question, he proposes three obstacles to this question, which include, "The first obstacle is the presence of Soviet troops on Hungarian soil.  There there is the communist power, clinging to power.  The third obstacle is the fragmentation of society" (50).  It was this question raised in the wake of the event surrounding the formal burial of Imre Nagy that presents a somewhat interesting perspective and the government structure is under reform.  In addition to Racz, Viktor Orban of the Young Democrats stated, "If we can trust our souls and strength, we can put an end to the communist dictatorship; if we are determined enough we can force the Party to submit itself to free elections; and if we do not lose sight of the ideals of 1956, then we will be able to elect a governement that will start immediate negotiations for the swift withdrawl of the Russian troops" (51).  While these separate parties exist, it is interesting to note the various perspectives that exist and how they each have their similar and yet in some ways, different approaches to this changing politcal climate.

 

 





And next, Ash shifts his focus to Berlin where the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall seems apparent.  As Ash comments, "The East Germans felt grateful to Gorbachev.  But more important, they felt they had won this opening for themselves.  For it was only the pressure ot their massive, peaceful demonstrations that compelled the Party leadership to take this step. 'You see, it shows Lenin was wrong,' observed one worker. 'lenin said a revolution could succeed only with violence.  But this was a peaceful revolution'." (64).  The monumental step that the Berlin Wall signified in Germany's political infrastructure changing shape demonstrated that "a revolutionary people's movement has set in motion a process of profound upheavals" (64).  The very structure of the Berlin Wall had been such a political division that "The Wall was not round the periphery of East Germany, it was at its very centre.  And it ran through every heart.  It was difficult even for people from other East European countries to appreciate the full psychological burden it imposed" (65).  So, on a personal level, what did the fall of the Wall signify for both West and East Germans alike?  How did these perspectives vary and how were they similar?  It was indeed the fall of the wall that lifted a repression off of the German people and was considered "the first peaceful revolution in German history" (69). 



Lastly is the focal point of Ash's collective accounts, the true Magic Lantern in Prague.  According to a meeting Ash had with Vaclav Havel, "In Poland it took ten years, in Hungary ten months, in East Germany ten weeks: perhaps in Czechosolvakia it will take 10 days!" (78).  However, it was the Magic Lantern that served as "the headquarters of the revolution" (79).  And yet, he seems to juxtapose the idea of the theater as headquarters with different smells as well as people playing the rolse of actors.  Especially the Workers, Ash highlights this group and how "all the intellectual voices are stilled when The Worker rises to speak" (87).  He also contrasts the politcal happenings in Prague to those of Poland and Germany in 1989, which shows how his 'witness' to these events have helped to shape his understanding and develop this sense of political awareness, as Ash recalls, "it was fascinating to see individuals responding instantly to the scent that wafted down into the Magic Lantern as the days went by.  The scent of power" (88).  And as the Forum commented through deliberations, "we are talking to the government of our country because we want a proper government, responsible to a proper parliament, not the rule of one Party" (92).  And so it was with the Revolution and birth of a new government with Czechoslovakia, that reform began to take place.  As Vaclav Klaus, as the Star of the Forum, noted, "[the Civic Forum] considers its basic objective to be the definitive opening of our society for the development of political pluralism and for achieving free elections.'  The movement is open to everyone who rejects the present system and accepts the Programmatic Principles.  There will be no hierarchial structure," (107).  The vision for the Prague government was such that, "there should be a grand coalition government, a government of experts, men of competence and moral integrity" (108).  And it was with this political vision that this country began to move foward...

And so 1989 brought a lot of challenges for Eastern Europe as distinct political, social and economic reform took place in separate countries which yet still coexisted together. And in the words of Timothy Garton Ash in reference to 1989, "this was the year that communism in Eastern Europe died" (131). 

Discussion Questions
1) Ash makes the distinction between being a witness and a historian as well as trying to contrast these two perspectives to a particular situation.  Is there a distinct difference between these two vantage points?  How are they similar? How are they different?
2) Each of these cities had some form of political "refolution' in the year 1989.  And yet, with this, it brought many changes because the Communist party was dissolving.  He approaches the year 1989 with dual perspectives of the present as well as hindsight.  But how does this dual perspective affect our understanding of this 'refolution' in the European theater?
3) The funeral of Imre Nagy adds another layer to the climate in Hungary 1989.  What implications did he/ his funeral have on the changing climate in Budapest and the greater Hungary?  What contributions did he bring to Hungary that made the whole country almost give him this day of reverence?
4) It seems that with any change or even proposed change to the structure of Germany, everyone holds their breath and 1989 was no exception, especially with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  However, Ash seems to present a change in thinking regarding what the Wall truly symbolizes and how it positions Germany for the future.  Is this a true turning point for Germany's attempt at a true democracy?
5) Ash paints this distinct picture of Prague in 1989, with the Magic Lantern being the focal point, in essence, "the headquarters of the revolution".  And while it is a true place and accurate to refer to it as such, he also seems to 'personify' this theater as a way of framing the revolution in Prague.  Is it fair to say that his use of smells as well as descriptions of groups and other topics fair?  And if so, what is his purpose in presenting Prague in this way?

Resources:

Ash, Timothy Garton. The Magic Lantern. New York: Random House Publishing, 1993. Print.
Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.

Secret Agent Man

Imagine what it would be like for you to try and begin to understand others' opinions and observations of your life.  This looming idea that someone was always watching and not necessarily knowing what those around you were observing until after the fact.  It was not until Timothy Garton Ash's learning of the Stasi files collected by the East German secret police, "that [he] started wondering whether Andrea had been working for the Stasis and whether she had opened the curtains so we could be photographed from the other side of the street" (5-6).  And the reality of the situation is that you indeed were being watched by the Stasi but not knowing until after the fact.  Would their observations have a profound effect on your interpration of these events?  Would this cause you to alter your understanding of these events basedon what information you discover in hindsight?

The very concept of the Stasi files suggests a large amount of distrust on behalf of the GDR secret police and many of the crimes that they arrested people for were for such miscommunications as "mehl box", which in German translates to box of flour, but all the citizen meant was mail box.  He was arrested because of it.  And as Ash mentions in his memoir, it was interesting for even him to compare his own written account with that of others' observations, stating that "[he was] made sensitive, perhaps oversensitive, by the Stasi experience," (242). 
So how does one begin to reconstruct their past?  As a journalist and writer living in East Germany in the 1970s, he was put undersurveillance and tracked throughout his time there.  As Germany sought to restore the country in the East, the Stasi contrasted the tactics of Hitler and the Third Reich by instead, "injecting fear, uncertainty and suspicion into every walk of life, making sure that few people ever uttered anything that might anger the regime". 
The very divisions between East and West Berlin had created an atmosphere throughout Germany that fostered mistrust between these opposing sides.  It would appear that these resentments between one to another were derived from pre-existing perspectives that these Stasi officiers were acting on. 



As Ash seeks to understand the mindset of these Stasi officers, he was plagued with questions such "What was it like to work in the ministry? How did they come to be there? What did they think they were up to in investigating me? What are they doing now?"(164).  One of these Stasi officers, Erich Mielke, was one that Ash had briefly profiled in his memoir, actually was imprisoned at the time.  According to the generalized accounts of these officers, "what [we] were doing, spying abroad, was more like what "normal" secret services do, what all states do, so they feel they have less or even nothing to be ashamed of" (165).  However, on the reverse side of the coin, the Stasi took to a radical form of intelligence in pursing citizens of East Germany and finding petty reasons to investigate them. As Ash states, "these gentlemen radiate a sense of quiet power: the power that comes, that has always come, that always will come, from secret knowledge" (243). 
The Stasi itself proved to have many different interwoven aspects that allowed for them to be successful in a unit.  It does depend however, on how one chooses to measure success.  In the Cold War, the very existence of the Stasi stands in an interesting junction within the European context.  All countries are trying to rebuild but also apply some sort of control to the newly formed divison.
Timothy Garton Ash's account of The File, is one that examines these perspectives.  At this point, he has read through his file and is seeking to get answers to what is going on, especially what prompted these men to join the Stasi.
In 1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, unification of Germany came in the next 11 months.  Elections that took place in East Germany were won by conservatives who shifted the focus of this state towards unification with West Germany.  As of October 3, 1990, under the West German constitution, Germany was officially one nation. Timothy Garton Ash presents an interesting perspective on Germany, in a lecture titled, "Germany Needs Europe", and he seeks to answer both the German question as well Germany's involvemnet in the EU, quoting Henry Kissinger, "Germany is in fact too big for Europe, but too small for the world".

 

Germany itself is a complex nation state.  It is a country plagued with memories of hate, espionage and political oppresssion.  However, as unification even continues to take place in the country, it is clear that Germany is trying to defy past perceptions in creating their future.  The Stasi files themselves are a large component to the memory of East Germany, which through movies such as "The Lives of Others" and other media, have truly come to light all that these Stasi officers did to obtain their information. 

Timothy Garton Ash is one of many who was monitored through the eyes of the East German secret police.  His artful depiction of his own account in conjunction with that of the Stasi creates a deeper understanding of almost a level of paranoia that took place in East Germany. 

The File would be an interesting movie mirroring Bourne, Bond and others like it, where there is a certain degree of surveillance.  The film would seek to tell dueling perspectives and therefore perpetuate this knowledge of the Stasi that much further.  Even today, "there is a two year wait list for people wanting to look at their own Stasi files", each rich with a story. Just imagine the music from Bourne playing in your head...

Discussion Questions

 

1) Ash takes the time to note in his Stasi file that he was ascribed the number “246816” or “Romeo”.   In lieu of this semester and exploring “identity” throughout the course of German history, I wonder what it meant for him to be thought of as another number among many?  How does this compare or contrast to Alter’s experience?

*** “You have a very interesting file” (6). 

2) Germany itself is a relatively young nation state with only about 20 years "under its belt".  Is the concept of peace throughout Europe, especially in reference to Germany, a fair assertion to make? Do people still wrestle with the German question or has it since dissolved with German involvement in the EU and unification of the country?

3) It seems that Timothy Garton Ash and other people like him who were under surveillance of the Stasi would have the right to their own information.  However, as one source pointed out, knowledge of these files has been made popular through various forms of media and that there is also a "two year waitlist".  How does viewing one own's information take two years? Wouldn't it be the rights of these individuals to see their own files?

4) In post WWII Germany, many citizens had different reactions to the exposure of the Final Solution and Nazi involvement.  And with this, there is a huge stigma that exists as these officers continue after the Holocaust. Is there that same type of stigma associated with being a Stasi officer? As much as a Nazi officer or within the SS??

5) One of the biggest aspects to restoration after the fall of the Third Reich was the idea of collective guilt or being guilty by association.  Is that a fair assertion to make within the context of East Germany and the Stasi. How do people in Germany cope today with this transition between Nazism and the Stasi? What are the similarities between the SS and the Stasi? What are the differences??

6) I believe that Timothy Garton Ash should be admired for the way he writes The File. He writes very honestly both on a personal level as well as a political level throughout discussions in his memoir, even exposing himself to his readers.  But for those who are just now reading their files and getting a sense of their lives through the Stasi, what is it like for them?? What would it be like for a family member to find out that a sister or brother was giving information to the Stasi?

 

 

Resources

Ash, Timothy Garton. The File. London: Harper Collins Publishers Ltd., 1997. Print

Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.

 

For further information on the Stasi files, please visit:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/stasi-files-revisited-the-banalities-and-betrayals-of-life-in-east-germany-a-659708.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/29/us-germany-wall-stasi-idUSTRE59S17520091029

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3275905/Stasi-police-kept-East-Germans-in-fear-for-40-years.html

 

 



 

"All Good Things Come in Threes" or Do They?

At the emergence of the post war period, Germany was left in ruin.  Piles of rubble were filling the major cities and the country itself was left in ashes.  The Germans themselves were weary of the Russians campaign against them in addition to the weariness associated with the Nazi regime's war efforts.  Much of what hung in the balance for Germany's future was a struture of government and with the demise of the Third Reich, what would emerge in its place and how would everyday Germans cope with this change? And yet, in the wake of post war Germany, what would be this new direction that Germany would take?  Especially with most Germans feeling wary of politics in general, it truly became a day to day "sheer fight for physical survival" (Fulbrook 117).  It was indeed a chance for Germany to start with a new beginning and all eyes were fixed to see what may happen next.

Germany stood divided by occupation zones and in each of these zones, certain groups formed in this shifting political climate, most of which emerged in the Soviet zone.  From the SMAD to the CDU to KPD, each of these groups had a "politcal agenda" so to speak.  The KPD, especially, sought to assume positions in the local government and "often subscribed to a humanistic version of communism which differed considerably from the Stalinist variant propagated by Moscow faction" (Fulbrook 119).  In Gehler's Three Germanies, he asserts that the KPD was the first party to show "the way to setting up an anti-Fascist, democratic regime, and a parliamentary democratic republic with all the democratic rights and freedoms for the people" (17).  Despite all these political parties, it was still important to remember that despite political structure, it was still a country with individual people who were sorting out what to make of this aftermath of the war.



Despite all of their feelings towards Germany, the Allies sought to help install some form of a political structure to help position Germany more in a state of reconstruction.  And more than anything, it was not the needs of a government, but the basic needs of the German people such as food, lodging, transportation and communication that the Allies saw as a greater priority in the stabilzation of this war torn country.  And in place of Nazism, the Allied powers also sought to try and remove what had become a way of life by being saturated in Nazism for nearly a decade.

As this process continued to take place, "it was generally accepted that in some way, Germany must be cleansed of Nazis, that those guilty of sustaining Nazi rule must be punished, and that it was essential, if future peace, was to be secured, that Germans should be convinced of the errors of the Nazi views and persuaded to assent to more democratic and peacful values" (122).  The Allied powers were faced with this responsibility and sought to try and remove Germany from these evils that they were responsible for, but at the same time, how did they wrestle with this notion of widely removing this way of thinking from an entire country?  How could you get individuals to simply forget and turn towards a separate way of thinking?

 

And so in the wake of the end of the 1940s, Germany was faced with several concerns about its future.  From 1949, with the creation of East and West Germany to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, these two separate republics were marked by two separate government approaches.  The first was the formation of a liberal democracy in the West with a contrasting democratic centralism in the East.  For people in West Germany, they found themselves able to rid their pasts and with the rapid growth in this republic, look towards establishing a future. 

 

 

As Germany waited through the early years of these new republics with their separate leadership and formation of political structures, the Berlin wall was finally erected in 1961.  According to Gehler, "the building of the Wall helped to stem the tidde of the threatened exodus from the GDR, led to its stabilization and at the same time marked the end of Adenauer's 'policy of strength', which turned to be a policy of German weakness and Western refusal of active German policy." (114).  This division to the city was brought with East and West Germany "coming to terms" with the barbed wire fences that spearated these gates; however, the symbol also was a form of propaganda that was used to assert a "victory of Socialism over Imperialism" (115).  But as history continued, it another 28 years before these two opposing sides confronted each other.

 

In the decades that followed, Gehler details the political structure that took place fueling German history.  In many ways, Germany continued to propel in their "cyclic pattern" of what some may call failure.  It is not until the end of the Cold War in 1989, that the Berlin Wall is finally torn down and it begins the process of unification.  Indeed, there is hope for Germany and even today, this country continues to rebuild itself.

 

 

Discussion Questions

1) What is it about the country of Germany that propels itself into a cycle of failure? It seems that after denazification, that it would remove itself and try to establish a simpler form of government to radically contrast the Nazi regime that had existed for a little over a decade, but instead, it goes for a more radial approach?  Was this the idea of everyone having a stick in the fire?

2) How does denazification still show itself in modern 21st century Germany? Is it still prominent in Germany and other countries? Or has it since gone away with the unification of the country?

3) With the emergence of KPD and other political parties, how was the political climate affected by the sheer number of political parties that started in post war Germany?

4) Keeping the focus on unification of the country, how does Germany begin to rebuild itself on an individual level?  What testimony is there to everyday life throughout the restoration and rebuilding of Germany?

5) What did the Allied powers (British and American) do to help the unification of Germnay? How did their "rescue" efforts seek to bring healing to the country as a whole?

 

References:

Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.

Gehler, Michael. Three Germanies: West Germany, East Germany, and the Berlin Republic. London: Reaktion Books, Ltd., 2011. Print.