by Erich Topp
We Germans must decide whether we want to support or retard the creation of an additional power center. In my opinion we should work decisively in the direction of an Atlantic partnership, which in turn presupposes a strong and united Europe as a true partner of the United States. A Europe that is militarily entirely dependent on the United States is likely to begin to question its own sense of security the more the two superpowers become mutually indestructible and begin to come to partial military arrangements among themselves with regard to nuclear weapons. If this development continues, a weak and detached Europe is destined to end up in the wake of the only atomic superpower on European soil, the Soviet Union.
For all these reasons I support de Gaulle's refusal to become a signatory to the Moscow Treaty. Apparently in efforts to create additional power centers a certain race has begun between Western Europe and China. Only a strong and united Europe at the side of the United States can induce the Soviets to end the Cold War in Europe in time and for good before a stronger China would force the United States to conclude a fake peace with the Russians so that the latter could deal with the Asiatic threat. Red China is determined to become such a power center, but it lacks for the time being the necessary industrial and technological resources. Europe has such a capacity but it lacks the necessary determination.
The proposed "Discussion about an all-German Peace Treaty" seems to be based on a point of view that does not regard Western Europe as united. For the concept of a West European power center would necessarily require two conditions: one, that conventional detente must lead to changes in the territorial claims of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe; and two, that an all-German peace treaty is only feasible as a result of a fundamentally changed situation involving the entire European continent. Such a transformation appears only possible if the Soviet Union and the United States are prepared to accept Europe as a powerful negotiating partner.
One cannot apply history directly to present-day problems because history never repeats itself. But one can expand one's insights, which in turn allows us to comprehend what is needed to solve the problems of the day-for instance now, after 1989, as breathtaking developments are in the making. But especially in this situation one should recall Bismarck's basic principles of government, which included the idea that po litical strategy requires patience and restraint, and that it is crucial to act decisively when the time is right. "True wisdom comes from the realization that, while you can set your clocks ahead, time does not run faster as a result; moreover, a preparedness to stand by while a situation is developing is a precondition of successful policy."
On December 28, 1966, I wrote to Guttenberg, who, with the formation of the so-called Great Coalition between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, had become State Secretary in the Chancellor's Office:
Dear Baron:
Along with our best wishes for the New Year I would like to include the hope that with the adoption of a good part of your political views by the new cabinet you will be honored accordingly and be allowed to share more political responsibility.
We view the political developments with considerable ambivalence. One could say that the West has won the Cold War to a certain extent. But now the West seems to feel so free from threats that it not only endangers its unity but also puts its very security at risk. The ministerial meeting in Paris brought us the spectacle of euphoria over detente at the same time that the Soviets announced a 7 percent increase in their defense budget. The West has not figured out what to do with its really quite limited victory, how to get from coexistence to peace and how to go from a divided to a united Europe. In the past it was easier to accept a divided Germany in a divided Europe than a divided Germany in a more or less unified Europe.
One thing is certain: the Soviet Union has not capitulated and has not given up East Germany. There can be no German reunification without the consent of the Kremlin. But to bring that about we need to create a favorable constellation, which in turn depends on patience and long-range planning. Military concessions will bring no results, even though we may be forced to make them anyway, given our financial situation.
In conclusion, one could say that the Warsaw Pact has strengthened its military potential and that we should pay more attention to military realities than to political intentions, which can always be changed or disguised. Even a certain political calm cannot hide these facts. To the contrary, I could imagine that the East tries to imbue the West with a false sense of security and to rob us of crucial insights into the true situation.
Indeed, this lack of insight appears to have reached new heights. For years now the West has been lacking political guidelines behind our military and strategic considerations. As a result the military planners of the United States, France, Britain, and the Federal Republic are badly divided. The mistrust of the politicians in West Germany has made the Bundeswehr into an instrument that could potentially be much more effective. For years we have been arguing over the question how to maximize the Bundeswehr's potential. Our answer to that question has been ignored for years. Only the Luftwaffe has taken the opportunity to press its demands when Generals Trettner and Panitzki resigned. Basically, we want to trans fer the experiences of modern business management to the military sector. Our leadership arrangements are too divided and complex to deal effectively with the necessities that grow from the mission of the military, from the external threat, from long-term planning, and from technological innovation.
For instance, the Inspector of the Navy has only limited influence over recruitment, training, and treatment of the Navy's personnel. For his shipbuilding program he depends on technical advice from experts over whom he has no formal control. He has to tolerate technological design and development projects in which he is not interested. These flaws in the organization of the Defense Ministry cannot be overcome even if everyone collaborates loyally. The highest echelons in the leadership of the Bundeswehr should not be organized in such a way that each department is responsible in its particular area of specialization for the entire military and that all coordination is done at the highest level. I would prefer a system that retains an integrated top-level organization but gives greater independence to the various branches of the armed forces, that is, a stronger congruity of assignments and responsibility in all areas of specialization. That is how it is done in the Anglo-Saxon countries and also in France because it makes sense. We believe this is the only way to achieve efficiency and cooperation, credibility for our readiness to defend ourselves, and effective operations if war breaks out. The highest leadership must remain unburdened so that it can deal with the truly decisive questions and can rely on well-functioning branches of the armed forces that are marked by the freedom to lead, to decide, and to carry responsibility.
If we want to justify our enormous defense budget and if the military is to become an effective instrument in the hands of the government, it seems paramount to me that we address the question of a reorganization of the Defense Ministry.
These ideas, pushed for years by the Luftwaffe and the Navy, were finally adopted under Helmut Schmidt in 1970. The Inspekteure, or Inspectors, of the three branches of the military became true military superiors of the soldiers under their command and answered directly to the defense minister in matters of personnel, materiel, budget, and infrastructure. With the help of systems and project specialists they gained immediate influence inside the ministry, especially with regard to research, development, testing, and procurement.
Late in July 1968, Guttenberg sent me these grave lines:
Dear Admiral:
I enjoyed your kind letter. Many thanks for it. Sadly I have a piece of had news for you. After lots of German doctors lied to me for years about my true state of health, American specialists have finally diagnosed the problem. They believe I am suffering from a serious and progressive nervous disorder for which modern medicine has no cure. All in all, this is not nice and rather depressing, but man has to digest what he is being fed
.
Best regards, also to your wife.
Sincerely yours,
Karl Theodor Guttenberg
The news of his serious illness and of his death in October 1972 did not surprise those who knew him, but it still touched many of his friends profoundly. He conquered death by the conviction that he could not escape it. Upright, incorruptible in attitudes and character, again and again he forced his tired body to return to the political arena to guard against any lapses in the question of German unity and to defend the foundations of our common state in freedom and justice. Since he knew that he had only a few more years to live, he grew stronger in his convictions. He proved that actions speak louder than words, but also that a politician has to stand behind his words. He said what he thought, and he did not give up even when he knew himself abandoned.
Marked by his serious illness, Baron von Guttenberg gave his last long speech before the German parliament on May 27, 1970. It has moved me much, and here are some excerpts:
We Germans, all Germans, have the right to be free and to determine our own destiny. This has been, is today, and must remain the hard core and the inalienable goal of all concrete German policy where and as long as this policy is carried on by democrats.
For my friends and for myself I want to emphasize strongly and in all seriousness, but sadly also out of concern, that we who carry responsibility for our country are not prepared to respect or acknowledge so-called realities if they are based on injustice. And allow me to add this question: Is there one among us who would declare in all seriousness that a wrong becomes acceptable simply because it has been around for years or even decades? I ask everyone in this body to ask yourself this question, and especially the Social Democrats who as a party deserve the honor to have contributed thousands of martyrs under Hitler's regime: Would anyone today be ready to make his peace with Hitler after having held out for thirtyseven years? My answer is No. And for the same reason we cannot accept a new injustice on German soil. I take the courage and the liberty to appeal to our conscience and to remind us that even those who think with a good conscience that they act in the interest of peace can be subject to dangerous miscalculations. And such miscalculations become most serious if one assumes one can counter a militant, totalitarian ideology with that kind of value-free, plain pragmatism that is otherwise quite appropriate for dealings among democrats...
Democracy in Germany has gone under once before because the Germans were caught in a spiritual and moral confusion, because the line that divides a democratic state based on liberty and justice from a totalitarian regime of criminals was swept away. I have reason to warn that this line could once again be violated, and this time by democrats. I do not even need our constitution; I need only my conscience to tell me that I as a member of this body carry responsibility for my entire people, and in particular for those who are condemned to live in silence. Nobody can deliver us, the freely elected representatives of the German people, from the duty to care for the destiny of our entire people. And furthermore: Is there one among us who would take issue with my contention that the love of freedom of the people in East Germany is in any sense less than that of the Czechs and Slovaks who in the spring of 1968 touched the conscience of the world?
The "representative of the nation" made clear something that is as valid today as it was in 1970. He spoke with an energy, conviction, and clarity that would encourage others, even though it was he who deserved the most to be encouraged. Even when staring death in the face he held up a bright torch. This torch was lit once more when on November 9, 1989, the members of the German parliament rose and sang in unison the national anthem as word arrived that the Berlin Wall would be torn down and East Germans were free to move once more. On that day it became clear that Germany was much more than the sum of economic forces. It contained an archaic consciousness of values and identities that transcended all daily concerns.
I had to think of Guttenberg's argument in our discussion about the motivation of soldiers: "We must bring back to life the archetypes that are sleeping in the soul of our people." On that day it was proven that the idea and reality of Germany as our fatherland was rooted in the collective archaic consciousness of the German people, not as a sudden option of the politics of our times but as a sign of ancient common ties and slowly grown ligaments.
More "Spotlights" from Washington:
September 5, 1958
National Press Club: During lunch a presentation by "Skipper" Anderson, who commanded the Nautilus during her voyage underneath the ice cap of the North Pole. No new details, but the atmosphere was interesting. Here they celebrated a national hero. And the hero presented himself as very informal and genuine. Even if the results of the Nautilus expedition appear minimal, one should join the American nation and its navy in their joy over setting this record, particularly after the many blows the American consciousness had to suffer over the past months.
I had to think of the audacious Nautilus adventure of the Australian Arctic explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins. In 1931 he tried to prove, with the help of an old submarine as well as fantastic gadgets such as ice-drilling equipment and under water sensors to locate the bottom side of floes, that permanent weather stations on the pack ice could be supplied by submarines. Wilkins, a researcher who wanted to broaden mankind's horizons, failed because his project could not be realized with existing technology. Thirty years later, on a nuclear submarine independent of external air supply, Anderson became the first man to sail beneath the polar ice cap. I congratulated Commander Anderson on his successful mission.
September 9, 1958
Another visit to SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic). Talked to Captain Morante, the Italian liaison officer. When World War II broke out he happened to be in China in charge of an Italian merchantman. He scuttled his vessel, blocking the ship channel of the Yangtse River. For this action he and his family were hauled off to a Japanese concentration camp. He was not released until 1946. He told me in so many words, which I had trouble believing: "Vessels carrying war materiel from the United States to Russia were not attacked by the Japanese on the basis of a secret treaty with the Americans, who diverted to Japan the equivalent of one third of the shipped items in other important commodities such as oil."
October 12, 1958
The entire family makes a trip to the Skyline Caverns. Beautiful autumn weather. In one of the caverns we could admire a so-called natural wonder rendered utterly into kitsch by colorful illuminations. The high point came when a stalactite in a human-like shape was transformed into a stylized madonna and presented to the audience to the sounds of "Ave Maria" played on a scratchy record player. That, too, is America.
We visited Harpers Ferry, a place of national significance. It once was the site of a munitions plant, and it was here that the Civil War began. We have some personal ties to the place as well. Several relatives of my wife are buried in the cemetery at Harpers Ferry. Her grandfather's uncle had emigrated to Virginia, and we found the tombstones with the names of our ancestors.
March 24, 1959
Lunch in the cafeteria of the Capitol with Mr. Rivers, a Congressman from Charleston, South Carolina, and friend of the Navy, and Undersecretary Dewey Short. Comradely atmosphere. Afterwards a tour of the Capitol, including the memorial hall where each state is represented by sculptures of two of its most prolific personalities. Artistically the sculptures had little appeal. Mr. Rivers was quite unhappy with the French. He saw them as a weak element in the NATO alliance according to the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. After all, logistical resupply of the troops in Europe is supposed to be channelled through French ports. Presently there is a big struggle over how to balance the budget and how high defense expenditures should be. But this is nothing new, of course. Plutarch tells us of similar problems some 1,800 years ago. Perseus, King of Macedonia, accumulated an immense treasure to be used for his defense against Roman attacks. But he was so tight-fisted that his mercenary soldiers de
serted. Perseus became Rome's wealthiest prisoner. I think we can learn something from his fate.
Another peek into the American soul. The Department of Defense published this news release on June 23, 1959: "Space monkey 'Baker' will be honored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Its president, William Rockefeller, will personally preside over the ceremony."
April 6, 1959
The great ceremony to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the founding of NATO took place in Norfolk under the auspices of SACLANT. First the "Honor of the Flag" with Paul Henri Spaak, Josef Luns, and the members of the Council. Later, lunch in the staff officers' mess. Then the big parade. Later, a party aboard the Canadian warship Bonaventure. Finally, a dinner party given by Vice Admiral Cooper, Commander Anti-Submarine Defense Force, and Vice Admiral Thatch, Commander Anti-Submarine Warfare Carrier Group. Germany was represented by Gebhardt von Walther, our ambassador to Mexico; Wilhelm Grewe, our ambassador to the United States; Franz Krapf, also from our embassy in Washington; and our consul in Norfolk, Herr Weiss.
During the day we also had a chance to tour the Nautilus. It was the first time that a nuclear-powered submarine was being shown, and not only to the officers but also to their wives. I shall never forget how Mrs. Krapf-very lively, charming, nine months pregnant--tried to descend through the very narrow hatch and the vertical companionways into the boat's interior in her elegant shoes with their two-inch high heels. Below her, American sailors stood by to catch her in case she lost her balance. "There is lightening," we used to say in the old days whenever a lady showed some of her underwear. Fortunately, Mrs. Krapf made it safely into the boat. When I offered to be her guide through the vessel, she asked me: "Captain, have you ever been on a U-boat?" With a clear conscience I could answer her question in the affirmative.
