PROCEDIMIENTO DE UNIÓN DE ACRÍLICOS MEDIANTE SOLVENTE

” A report to the SED Central Committee in April 1948 complained that the activist conferences staged by local Soviet commandants were little more than ‘functionary and member assem blies’, and that many factory directors and union secretaries considered the activist movement a mere ‘improvisation’. SA PM O -B A D Y 30/IV 2/2027/22, ‘Bericht iiber die bisherige Verwirklichung des Aufbauplans 2 3 4 ’, 8 Apr. 1948, bl. 113-4. A contemporary report describes the competitions as mere formalities agreed between the managers o f different enterprises, usually without consulting the workers and occasionally without even informing them, ibid., report to Ulbricht, 6 Apr. 1948, bl. 152.

Informed well in advance, party and union propagandists launched a massive and well coordinated campaign to popularize Hennecke and his ‘heroic deeds’. Within days o f his feat, Hennecke’s face and name were seen everywhere. Newspapers were filled with unbelievable statistics and reports of local activists’ feats. Workers in other industries supposedly emulated him, and telegrams poured in announcing amazing new production records all across the SBZ. Activist posters were pasted everywhere, billboards were covered with activists’ faces, pins and medals were produced, even schools and streets were named after Hennecke. There was also a spate of embarrassingly puerile poems and songs about him, which one can only imagine hindered the movement more than helped it. One example offers a taste of their iconographie flavour:

Hennecke! Du bist der Mann, der uns begeistert! Hennecke! M it Dir wird unsere N ot gemeistert!

Hennecke! Wir schworen Dir, wir wollen uns bemUhen! Hennecke! Durch Dich wird unsere Wirtschaft wieder blUhen! Hennecke! Du bist ein Held von unserer Klasse!

Hennecke! Du bist mit uns die starke Masse!

Hennecke! Wir wollen stets von D ir als Vorbild sprechen!

Hennecke! Du wirst der BrUder Knechtung auch im Westen brechenP^

In spite of (or perhaps because of) such propagandistic efforts, reports from the factories offer little evidence that the movement worked, as most workers remained

For a concise account o f the origins o f the Hennecke-M ovem ent, see N. Naimark, The Russians, op. cit., p. 198-202.

SA PM O -B A N Y 4177/3, NachlaB Hennecke, bl. 43.

sceptical of production increases so long as the problems of supply continued. In the words of a construction worker in Potsdam: ‘Yes, if we all wanted to work like Hennecke and were in the position to do it... I often wait hours for sand because there is none, or the other way around for lime because I don’t have any. It’s the same with my colleagues as it is for me. See to it that we don’t just stand around because there is no material, then Hennecke wouldn’t even be necessary in the first place’ Furthermore, the vast majority of workers correctly doubted the verity o f Hennecke’s heroic performance and knew good and well that a normal work day simply did not allow for such production increases. As one retired worker put it: ‘I’ve worked in factories and know what one can manage to do. But the idea that a worker nowadays triples his performance or even increases it sixfold seems impossible to me as long as everything happens in a normal way. In my opinion the Henneckes prepare everything hours in advance, pick out the best tools for themselves and get provided with the necessary materials. In short, it’s actually just a big song and dance {ein Theater) that is being performed. I know what it’s all about. W e’re supposed to produce more, the workers are supposed to work more, but one cannot do this like the Hennecke movement is doing it. That way you w on’t find any sympathy among the really honest workers’

And indeed it did not. Despite their occasional successes, the Henneckists gained little influence — either moral or political — over their fellow workers. In fact, their efforts won them more anger and hostility than admiration, as Hennecke him self had feared and quickly found out: ‘When I came to the shaft the next day the mates

(Kumpel) did not look at me anymore. That’s anything but a nice feeling when you

BLH A Ld. Br. Rep. 202G , Nr. 48, ‘Stimmen zur Hennicke (sic!)-B ew egung aus Potsdam ’, 10 D ec. 1948, bl. 42.

look them in the eyes and say “G liickauf’ and they nod, yes, but you don’t hear anything anymore. I used to be just Adolf, a miner like any other. But now there was a wall between us’.'^^

Opposition arose on a number of levels. Given the grim material circumstances, there was an understandable aversion to working harder. A report from the VEB Siemens-Plania in Berlin-Lichtenberg describes the scene thus: ‘There were earnest and bitter faces, passionate discussions and vicious heckling. One worker pulled off his completely shredded shoe and placed his finger through the hole in the sole. “W e’re supposed to walk around like this! This is how we’re supposed to stay healthy in order to work, to work even more?!” Turbulent heckling: “What did you actually have in m ind?” — “At least give us shoes f i r s t T h e fact that the management cadre often participated in the first Hennecke-shifts hardly added to their attractiveness, and where Hennecke shifts were pushed through against the will of employees, would-be activists often found themselves supplied with the poorest material, sometimes even finding their machines damaged or tools missing.'^ There was also widespread resentment towards the lack of solidarity the activists were showing their colleagues. Not only were they separating themselves from the social framework of the work collectives and being singled out for special bonuses and perquisites, they also ruined the energy- saving tricks of other workers; little surprise, then, that activists were often derided as ‘norm breakers’, ‘slave drivers’, ‘wage cutters’ and ‘traitors to workers’. Hennecke

ibid..

'*■ A. Hennecke, ‘Der Durchbruch aus dem Teufelskreis’, in: Erwin Lehmann et al (eds.), Aufbruch in unsere Zeit: Erinnerungen an die Tatigkeit der Gewerkschaften von 1945 bis zur Griindung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. 2nd ed., (Berlin, 1975), p. 197.