Lo que Cristo ofrece, lo recibimos sin ningún aporte personal nuestro.

The British press continuously covered the changing relationship between the Soviet Union and the GDR from 1985/86 onwards and consequently displayed a shift in

476 _{Simmons, ‘Birthday toast ignores refugees’, p. 10.} 477

Bernard Levin, ‘Butter and guns for East Germany’s reluctant comrades’, The Times, 17/0/1972, p. 14; ‘It’s easy (and illegal) as mugging a masochistic philanthropist’, The Times, 06/02/1973, p. 14; ‘The benign bacillus that plagues the Soviet despots’, The Times, 04/05/1977, p. 16.

478

perception of the GDR during the following years. As part of the developments in the relationship, the press reported the longing of the East German population for Soviet- style reforms and considered potential consequences of rejecting them by the East German leadership. In particular, conservative newspapers critically observed this political development and distanced themselves from both the GDR and its political leader.

After the new Secretary General of the CPSU, Mikhail Gorbachev, introduced his reform policies of glasnost and perestroika in February 1986, Soviet-East German relations entered into a new stage. In the years that followed, Gorbachev became highly popular in the West, with the British government broadly supporting his

reforms.479 Moreover, glasnost and perestroika became key words for changes in the

Soviet Union and raised hopes that the Cold War could come to an end in the not too distant future. At the same time, the GDR isolated itself increasingly from the USSR

and rejected any Soviet-style policy reforms. In news coverage of the SED’s 11th Party

Congress (1986) in East Berlin, the British press already started to acknowledge the obvious differences between Gorbachev’s new political approach and political realities in the GDR. Moreover, a positive portrayal of the Soviet leader could be seen and his

innovative political agenda. The Times noted the ‘clash of leadership style’480 between

Honecker and his Soviet counterpart. It reported: ‘Mr Gorbachev made the Soviet party congress last February into a radical reassessment of economic policies and party shortcomings. However, Herr Honecker yesterday indulged in only mild doses of self-

criticism.’481 A type of parallel sentence structure can be recognised in both sentences

which particularly stresses the differences between the Soviet and the East German leader. The verbs in the two statements, for example, draw attention to the different approaches by the two politicians. The verb ‘made’ portrays Gorbachev as active, he is involved in change. The adjective ‘radical’ further emphasises his active role. In contrast, Honecker is portrayed as rather passive by the verb ‘indulge’. The adjective ‘mild’ forms the opposition to ‘radical’ and further underlines Honecker’s different approach. The Guardian similarly characterised Gorbachev as ‘an established advocate of self-criticism’, but reported that Erich Honecker’s ‘tone, far from being self-critical,

479

McCauley, ‘British-GDR Relations’, p. 54. 480

Roger Boyes, ‘Gorbachov looks for substance beyond the Berlin ritual’, The Times, 22/04/1986, p. 6. 481 _{Roger Boyes, ‘Gorbachov dazzled as Honecker preaches microchip revolution’, The Times,}

was one of almost undiluted self-congratulation.’482 As the example above, the structure of both statements should be noted whereby the nouns ‘self-criticism’ and ‘self-congratulation’ form opposites. The description ‘established advocate’ argues that although Gorbachev has only been in office for 13 months, he had already gained a very positive reputation in the Western world. Furthermore, the article also urges the East German government to a more critical assessment regarding its political decisions. The newspaper especially highlights the government’s lack of understanding of what ‘ordinary’ people wanted. Noticeably, both The Times and The Guardian refrained from stronger criticism of Honecker, and rather indicated that a younger generation would most likely implement similar reforms in the near future.

In the following years, several articles continued to critically report on the East German anti-reform agenda and the country’s increasing isolation. The Times declared

in April 1987 that ‘Honecker dashes any ideas of Soviet-style reforms’483 In contrast to

earlier articles, the newspaper now described Honecker as a politician who not just passively refuses any changes in the GDR, but rather actively ‘dashes’ them. Later in the same year the newspaper printed a caricature of Honecker which emphasised Honecker’s anti-reformist image. It shows Honecker holding a bucket of paint and a paint brush and standing in front of the Wall, which bore the freshly painted slogan ‘Glasnost Nein’. By using this image, the newspaper links the question of reforms with the separation of the two German states, along with Honecker’s decisive role in this context and his clear rejection of any changes. The Observer assessed East German policy especially critically. It strongly rejected Honecker’s ‘unyielding and unresponsive orthodox Communist government’ which ‘resisted calls from Moscow to implement

glasnost and perestroika restructuring.’484 The cluster of negatively connoted adjectives strongly stresses the newspaper’s rejection of the East German government. It went on to compare the new East German policy towards the Soviet Union with a

vaccination ‘against the Gorbachev freedom bug’.485 Although the policy would allow

more personal contact between the GDR and the Federal Republic, this description emphasises the East German government’s fear of the reforms. At the same time, the analogy underlines the impact of Gorbachev’s ideas; they are spreading and cannot be

482

Michael Simmons, ‘Honecker awards himself top marks’, The Guardian, 18/04/1986, p. 8. 483

‘Honecker dashes hopes of reform’, The Times, 24/04/1987, p. 7.

484 _{Catherine Field, ‘East Germans plan “glasnost” welcome’, The Observer, 24/05/1987, p. 12.} 485

easily stopped. In contrast to other newspapers, The Guardian continued to present a more positive image of the East German party leader. It repeatedly reminded readers that reforms had already been, or certainly would be, introduced in the future. In connection with speculations about a potential suspension of the East German shoot- to-kill order, the newspaper suspected a ‘new form of glasnost practised by East

Berlin.’486 The newspaper presented the East German leadership in a positive light

through the connection between the East German political decision and Gorbachev’s highly positive regarded reforms. In this context, the newspaper added: ‘Honecker has

so far resisted glasnost’.487 The addition of ‘so far’ distracts the reader from the lack of

reform and instead points to a realisation of this in the future.

Overall, the British press reflected the diverging developments in the GDR in contrast, first to the Soviet Union and later to other Eastern European countries. Moreover, it recognised potential implications of the GDR’s isolation policy. From 1986 onwards, the press highlighted the discrepancy between the GDR’s official party policy and the population’s expectations and demands as a consequence of Gorbachev’s reforms. The Times, for example reported that ‘young East Germans encouraged by Moscow’s glasnost want the Wall to tumble and the GDR Honecker has built to be

liberalized.’488 As the East Germans only had to be ‘encouraged’, the newspaper

highlighted the already existing dissatisfaction amongst the East German population with its government. In addition to the existing split between government and population, the newspaper’s growing rejection of the East German leadership, particularly of Erich Honecker, becomes visible in this statement. The newspaper indirectly stresses the unfree nature of the GDR, as only an ‘unfree’ society has to be ‘liberalized’. Moreover, it can be seen that the newspaper holds Honecker himself responsible for this situation as he ‘has built’ the country despite the fact that he was not the leading politician before 1973. In February 1988, the newspaper commented on the growing fears within the East German leadership that their own youth were

‘slowly moving out of the state’s control.’489 It claimed that the changing mood was

caused by growing disappointment over the lack of reform and argued that ‘Until fairly

486 _{Anna Tomforde, ‘E Berlin holds its fire’, The Guardian, 13/08/1987, p. 7.} 487

‘A tale of two parties’, The Guardian, 27/05/1987, p. 12. 488

Owen, ‘Keeping faith with father’, p. 10.

489 _{Richard Bassett, ‘Regime’s distrust of the young prompts Berlin clampdown’, The Times, 02/02/1988,} p. 8.

recently, young East Germans had been optimistic because of glasnost […] but the ageing leadership in the Politbüro here offers little hope for the young that glasnost

will sweep their country swiftly.’490 Most commonly advanced age is not associated

with changes and the newspaper clearly identifies ‘the ageing leadership’ as the central issue which prevents reforms. The fact that Gorbachev belongs to a younger generation than Honecker and other Eastern bloc politicians has always been perceived as a decisive factor for his progressive leadership style. Moreover, The Times places the East German politicians in opposition to the ‘young East Germans’ who demand reforms with the conjunction ‘but’. The East German population’s growing dissatisfaction was also reported in other British newspapers. Initially The Observer and The Guardian only recognised a growing dissatisfaction within certain parts of East German society, but The Guardian later established the view that the lack of reform was a general concern for all East Germans not just young ones as reported in earlier articles. By the end of 1988, The Guardian had finally detected that the ‘biggest trouble for the conservatively inclined and aging leadership is that most East Germans like

Gorbachev and his policies.’491 The superlative of ‘big’ shows the attraction of glasnost

and perestroika and its impact on the East German society. Similar to The Times, the newspaper connects the leaders’ progressing age with his unwillingness to allow reforms in the GDR. In comparison, The Observer focused on a group which was often in conflict with the state system, reporting that ‘The East Germans have been cracking down on dissidents who have repeatedly called on East Berlin to adopt Moscow’s

reforms’.492 The sentence indirectly notes that in contrast to the GDR’s long-term

policy to regard the Soviet Union as role model, the country was now persistently refusing to follow Moscow. The article also indicated the potential danger of Honecker’s decisions about reforms by warning that ‘Any chance of dissidents from East Germany mingling with Czechs now experiencing a hint of glasnost presents a

danger to East German stability.’493 The phrase ‘any chance’ argues that every contact,

even if it is only indirect or brief, with the reform policy can already endanger the state. Moreover, the sentence stresses the growing isolation of the GDR as other Eastern European countries already ‘experiencing’ glasnost and as even this ‘hint of

490

Richard Bassett, ‘Regime’s distrust of the young prompts Berlin clampdown’, p. 8. 491

Michael Simmons, ‘Little Erich and rumours of perestroika’, The Guardian, 22/12/1988, p. 19. 492 _{Field, ‘East Germans plan “glasnost” welcome’, p. 12.}

493 Ibid.

glasnost’ represents a contrast to the situation in the GDR. Other newspapers also

reported the danger of the GDR’s anti-reform policy and of the growing gap between the Soviet Union and the GDR for the future of the East German state. In 1987, The

Guardian had already established a connection between the ‘survival’ of the GDR and

its resistance of glasnost. The newspaper argued that the Wall was as ‘necessary today

for the survival of the East German state as ever.’494 The statement refers to the critical

situation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when hundreds of thousands of East German citizens left their country through the still permeable border between the two German states. As a result the country was close to collapse due to the lack of skilled workers. The adverb of time ‘today’ and the phrase ‘as ever’ point out that the situation in the GDR has not changed and indirectly that the country has not gained any stronger support amongst its population within the last 26 years. The article continued to argue that ‘This is why Mr. Honecker has so far resisted Mr. Gorbachev’s

glasnost.’ The demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ links back to the previously analysed

sentence. Therefore, it connects the East German anti-reform policy with the survival of the country as reform measures would potentially include an opening up of the country towards the West and the freedom to travel for ordinary East German citizens.

The Times also agreed that ‘the changes being drafted in Moscow threaten the security

of the East German communist establishment.’495 The newspaper’s rejection of the

East German government becomes once more visible in the phrasing ‘communist establishment’. The noun ‘establishment’ refers to a controlling elite but is not necessarily connected with a democratically elected government which hold the support of its citizens. It additionally holds the meaning of an established group and therefore forms a contrast to the ‘changes’ which have been initiated by ‘Moscow’. Moreover, the adjective ‘communist’ stresses the significance of ideology for this elite and how much it is still determined by it. This focus on ideology again contrasts with the generally pragmatic Soviet reform. At the end of 1988, the newspaper even forecasted that ‘Romania and East Germany, resisting the Gorbachov revolution, will have leadership crises this year. East Germany is particularly sensitive since there is

real pressure for change from below on Herr Erich Honecker, aged 75.’496 The Times

494

‘A tale of two parties’, p. 12.

495 _{‘The heretic of Moscow’, The Times, 23/11/1988, p. 17.} 496

seemed fully convinced of the country’s future as its prediction does not contain any doubts recognisable through adverbs as ‘probably’ or ‘most likely’. Moreover, a new quality in the newspaper’s characterisation of Gorbachev’s politics can be recognised. Earlier articles referred to glasnost and perestroika as reforms but the newspaper now used the term ‘revolution’ which has a much stronger and more global effect on societies. The second sentence focuses again on the contrast between the East German population and the ageing leadership of the state. Honecker’s age, an unimportant information in this context, stresses his inability to initiate ‘change’ as demanded by the population.

Relations between the Soviet Union and the GDR form an essential part of the overall GDR coverage in the British press. Despite being superficially represented as equal participants through the regular use of the term as ally/allies, closer analysis has uncovered a variety of nuances within press coverage which demonstrate the press ability to represent the GDR in detail. Moreover, the analysis has also shown the varying political stances of individual newspapers and how they always contributed to their representations of the GDR. The press coverage of Soviet-East German relations mirrored the respective political changes, as the press quickly responded to the latest events. This is particularly obvious during the second half of the 1980s. The press, and particularly the more conservative newspapers, were able to highlight the deteriorating relations between the Soviet Union and the GDR. Moreover, it showed the potential consequences for the East German state in a way that was not reflected elsewhere in the discussion of the GDR at the time. In addition to Soviet-East German relations, British newspapers also regularly reported on inter-German developments. The next section will shed further light on the representation of the GDR in the British press by investigating the relationship between the two German states.