Nuestra justicia se basa en el perdón de los pecados logrado por Cristo.

Towards the end of the 1970s and during the early 1980s, the German Question was back on the press’ agenda, reaching its highpoint in 1984. While the conflict between

522

‘Hole in the Wall’, The Guardian, 25/05/1978, p. 13; see also: Christopher Mayhew, ‘A plan for Central Europe’, The Guardian, 17/09/1984, p. 9; Hella Pick, ‘East Germany cheers its prison wall’, The

Guardian, 13/08/1981, p. 5.

523 _{‘Honecker relents’, The Guardian, 16/02/1981, p. 6.} 524

‘Talking of German unity’, The Times, 18/02/1981, p. 15. 525

Michael Binyon, ‘A German dream foundering on the rock of Realpolitik’, The Times, 06/09/1984, p. 12.

526

the Soviet Union and the United States worsened during this period, the two German states were able to continue their dialogue. In particular, the coverage of Erich Honecker’s potential visit to the Federal Republic provoked questions about a closer relationship and the chance of a future reunification. Honecker’s unexpected speech in 1981 about the future of Germany had already begun to spark press speculation. In February of that year, Erich Honecker stated during a party conference that if the capitalist West German society were to undergo a socialist transformation, a future reunification would need to be reconsidered. After years of demarcation from the West German state, this came as a big surprise to most observers. It should be added that the probability of such a transformation as per Honecker’s ‘conditions’ could, of course, be regarded as highly unlikely. The press coverage of Honecker’s announcement provides a good example of the importance of the media in the representation of the GDR in Britain. In addition to the coverage of minor events, the press promptly covered ongoing events and therefore reflected the respective attitudes in Britain. Moreover, the press coverage shows how the individual newspapers presented different perspectives on the same event. The Guardian and

The Times covered the announcement and showed certain similarities in their

representations of the GDR and its leadership in this context.527 The extensive use of

direct and indirect quotations from the speech, coupled with the lack of any expression of criticism or doubt, suggests that they both saw the announcement as significant and regarded it as credible. Moreover, both newspapers also acknowledged the ability of Honecker and the GDR to assert their own interests on an international level. The headlines clearly illustrate their agreement: ‘Herr Honecker favourable to reunification of Germany’ (The Times) and ‘Honecker relents’ (The Guardian). These two examples represent Honecker as the active and responsible agent. In characterising Honecker’s ‘assessment of the scope of action of both German states’ as

‘realistic’, The Times further promoted Honecker’s credibility.528 By making reference

to the GDR’s policy on world peace and disarmament, the newspaper further enhanced the country’s positive image. The Guardian noted that Honecker’s speech ‘confirmed signs of a gradual move away from the insistence that there were no

527

‘Honecker relents’, p. 6; Gretel Spitzer, ‘Herr Honecker favourable to reunification of Germany’, The

Times, 17/02/1981, p. 5.

528

common links between East and West Germany.’529 The connection with current political developments in inter-German relations also signals the credibility of the statement. The portrayal of Honecker as an important and decisive politician in inter- German relations was further supported through a lack of negative comments about the GDR, and an absence of suggestions of the state’s dependency on the Soviet Union or the Federal Republic.

Despite these similarities, distinctions can also be detected between The Times and The Guardian. The Guardian responded more enthusiastically to the statement and attached an even higher significance to it than The Times. The Guardian’s additional emphasis on the East German population’s support of such a move upgraded the meaning of Honecker’s statement. The newspaper reported: ‘The policy [of demarcation from the Federal Republic] was never popular among ordinary people, most of whom still hold to the view that East and West Germans belong to one

country.’530 Moreover, it argued that a broader political consensus in the country

supported Honecker’s idea: ‘Mr Honecker was interrupted by thunderous applause from communist delegates when he made the statement on unification.’ The

Guardian’s coverage should not be regarded as support for a future reunification as

such a development was rather unlikely under the conditions outlined by the East German leader. This statement can rather be seen to represent yet another positive representation of Honecker and confirmation of the country’s significance. The final remarks in both articles underline the fact that the newspapers did not have a homogeneous understanding of the implications of Honecker’s announcement. The

Guardian drew attention to Honecker’s predecessor Walter Ulbricht, who had pursued

the policy of a united German state. In making this reference, the newspaper constructed a historical context which served as substantiation for the current announcement. In contrast, at the end of its article The Times referred to the West Germans’ cool response to the announcement and thus, placed its own reservations in line with the Western German policy.

Unlike The Guardian and The Times, The Observer did not consider Honecker’s statement as believable and rather regarded it as an attempt to influence West

529 _{‘Honecker relents’, p. 6.} 530

German internal policy.531 The Observer’s headline ‘“One Germany” talk is ruse’, suggests that the newspaper had clear reservations. The noun ‘ruse’ particularly shows that Honecker’s statement is not believable and rather aims to fool the public. This argumentation continues throughout the entire article, for example, in its explanation of Honecker’s sudden change of mind as ‘an attempt to exploit the dispute among West German Social Democrats.’ The use of the verb ‘to exploit’ particularly emphasises the article’s negative portrayal of the East German leader. The article’s concluding statement: ‘No East German leader seriously believes that West Germany can be neutralised’, dismisses any notion of this being a realistic offer. However, already the publication indicates that the newspaper perceived the GDR and its leadership to be an important international player, capable of influencing West German policy. This impression is further enhanced since it makes no comment about Honecker not acting independently in this context.

In complete contrast to the aforementioned publications, The Daily Telegraph completely ignored Honecker’s speech and instead published an article on the East

German State Security Service in light of the rising freedom movement in Poland.532

The article was in line with the newspaper’s generally negative portrayal of the GDR. This stance is further illustrated by the description of the brutal and militaristic character of the country in contrast to the events in Poland. The newspaper reported on the ‘importance of paramilitary camps where children are drilled and indoctrinated in a fashion reminiscent of the Hitler Youth’, and thus, equates the militaristic youth policy of the Third Reich with the current situation in the GDR. The use of the verb ‘to indoctrinate’, especially when applied to children, underlines the newspaper’s negative representation of the East German state.

The presence of the German Question in British news coverage has been demonstrated and in particular its ability to reflect on the subject from the perspective of the GDR itself. As a result of a wide variety of political perspectives amongst the British broadsheet newspapers, the press was able to provide different representations of an individual event, as illustrated above. The next section will analyse the press’ portrayal of the general fear surrounding a German unification, and

531

Werner Kastor, ‘“One Germany” talk is ruse’, The Observer, 01/03/1981, p. 10.

532 _{Robert Moss, ‘The intelligence war: East Germany’s anxious regime’, The Daily Telegraph,} 16/02/1981, p. 6.

will go on to suggest potential consequences of the exclusion of negative feelings in Britain from the press.