Sólo la regeneración nos da parte en la salvadóvientre de mi madrn eterna.

The restricted view on opposition and with it the GDR itself was also reflected in the press’ presentation of geographical space. Chapter 1.4.1 has already discussed the journalists’ high interest in the city of East Berlin. This strong focus was also reflected in the coverage of opposition in the GDR, while almost no other places in the GDR were mentioned in the respective articles. For example, The Guardian reported that ‘10 leading writers and artists in East Berlin have issued [...] protest against their

government’s action in depriving [...] Biermann of his citizenship.’640 As the press

offered no further information about protests in other places in the GDR (which took place as demonstrated above), the focus remained entirely on East Berlin. Only in 1977, a year after the actual expulsion, did The Guardian report on ‘two young writers [...] from Jena’ who ‘were arrested after signing a resolution protesting against the

exiling’ of Biermann.641 When summarising the events around Biermann and

Havemann in 1976, The Times again restricted the events to the capital, explaining that

‘there are probably additional reasons for the unsteadiness in East Berlin.’642 Overall,

geographical knowledge of the GDR in Britain was often not relevant for the articles as many reported on events via the Federal Republic, for example in the case of book publications or announcements of the arrival of emigrants. The entire coverage of the Wolf Biermann case was reported from the Federal Republic, as Biermann was

‘refused permission to return from his present trip to West Germany.’643 The wave of

artists leaving the GDR after the protests was also reported after their arrival in the West. Under the headline ‘Dissenters leave E Germany’, The Times noted that ‘Herr Thomas Brasch, a writer, and Frau Katharina Thalbach, an actress arrived in West

Berlin.’644 In this context, it becomes evident how the possibility to interview East

Germans after they had left their country influenced and even limited the image of the GDR in the British press. Other articles provided more specific locations such as Havemann’s house (as he was under house arrest), Bahro’s prison cell or even the centre of the East German government. However, these spaces did not of course widen readers’ geographical knowledge of the GDR, but rather due to their highly

640 _{W. L. Webb, ‘GDR artists protest over Biermann’, p. 2.} 641

W. L. Webb, ‘Dissident outflow increases’, p. 6. 642

Richard Davy, ‘The East German regime sways “normality” sets in’, The Times, 13/12/1976, p. 14. 643 _{‘East German poet loses citizenship’, p. 9.}

644

negative connotations contributed to a negative perception of the GDR in the press and seemed, instead, to highlight the state’s claustrophobic qualities. When reporting that ‘the East German regime has chosen to deal with most of its critics among the intelligentsia by driving them into exile’ it also pointed out that ‘Haveman (sic) remains under house arrest in East Berlin, and the authorities recently arrested Rudolf Bahro

[...].645 Given Havemann’s inability to articulate his views in the GDR, his publications,

interviews or other statements were also reported via the Federal Republic as the following sentence from a Times article shows: ‘The voice of Professor Robert Havemann, the East German held under a form of house arrest for the past two years,

is being heard in a series of broadcasts in West Germany.’646 As the name of Rudolf

Bahro only became known in the UK after he had been arrested, articles concerning him were always negatively associated with his imprisonment. This is exemplified perfectly in the following Guardian headline: ‘Utopia viewed behind bars - Rudolf

Bahro must be freed from prison.’647 Later articles always reminded the readers of

Bahro’s location, such as in The Times report on a letter written by 37 Labour MPs, which was sent to the East German Prime Minster to protest against Bahro’s

sentence.648 As a result of coverage which was either restricted to a small part of the

GDR (its capital) or only showed places with negative connotations, a more global perception and understanding of the whole country and any opposition that took place remained impossible.

The above analysis has demonstrated that the press’ representation of opposition activities during the mid-1970s was defined by certain characteristic features: Participants were reported as acting independently, and focus was often directed at prominent figures. This impression was further supported by the lack of connection between the individuals or the existence of any type of network. The representation of primarily isolated fights against the East German authorities implied that there were only small chances of changing East German policies and additionally suggested the lack of potential for opposition within the wider East German population. The perceived limitation of opposition in the GDR was strengthened

645 _{Hella Pick, ‘E. Germany brands dissidents as agents’, p. 7. See also: ‘No action on “MP’s letters”’, The}

Guardian, 27/11/1976, p. 1; Gretel Spitzer, ‘Five E German dissidents emigrate to West’, p. 4.

646

Gretel Spitzer, ‘Professor smuggles out attack on regime’, The Times, 12/10/1978, p. 9. 647 _{E. P. Thompson, ‘Utopia viewed behind bars’, The Guardian, 14/12/1978, p. 10.} 648

through the reporting of campaigns or actions after they had already failed and the participants were suffering under the authorities’ will. A final aspect which has been identified as typical of the news coverage of opposition is its geographical restriction. As a result, the reader was unable to gain a broader impression of the GDR as a whole, and particularly its society. Despite these limitations of the press coverage by the time, it still presented a important source for information in Britain about opposition in the GDR. The following section will analyse press coverage in 1982/83 under the same criteria as the earlier period. It will be shown that in this short time, the press coverage on opposition underwent decisive changes which also affected the overall image of the GDR.