A survey of historical events that occurred on the ninth of November from the fall of the German Empire in 1918 to the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

1. The Uncanny Prominence of the Ninth of November from
the Fall of the German Empire to the Fall of the Berlin
Wall
Robert Blum, Martyr in the Cause of Establishing a Unified and Democratic
German Nation
November 9 has become widely known as Germany's Schicksalstag - day of destiny- particularly
since the opening of the Berlin Wall on that date in1989 when the recurrence of events of
historical moment on November 9 finally earned widespreadrecognition as some kind of
phenomenon, for on the same day in the year the beginning German Republic was proclaimed,
Hitler and Ludendorff mounted an attempt to overthrow the same Republic and, most
ominously, the so-calledReichs-Kristallnacht took place in1938, this being the state-organized
destruction of synagogues and Jewish property that pointed the way to the Holocaust. Add to all
this a less well-known date in German history, the execution of Robert Blum in Viennain1848,
which marked the crushing of the first opportunity for the establishment of a democratic
framework within which German states could work together towards peace, security and ultimate
unity.
Robert Blum was born on November 9, 1807 in Cologne. His family circumstances were harsh
but after working in various trades he found secure employment in a theatre company and then
scope for self-education and the development of writing skills which included writing poetry
dedicated to the cause of liberty and social justice. His political involvement brought him into
leading positions within the movement towards political and constitutional reform of the German
Confederation and promoted him to the office of delegate to the Diet of 1848 held in the
Paulskirche in Frankfurt, where he played a prominent and influential role. He was a Radical
Liberal in terms of the party-political spectrum of the times but he was in no sense an extremist
or demagogue. He eschewed Prussian ethnocentric militarism, recourse to violence as a vehicle
of protest and remained a Catholic, through one who rejected certain forms of rigid
authoritarianism and clerical intransigence. He went to Vienna during an outburst or
revolutionary foment which provoked a severe counterrevolutionary reaction. The regime
arrested Blum on charges of terrorist activity and despite his right to immunity as a delegate to
the Frankfurt Diet he was condemned to death and executed on the November 9. Can we connect
the dots between the historical occurrences noted above? The tragic failure of the bid to reform
the constitution of the German Confederation in 1848 set the scene for the chain of events that
led to world war, the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust. On the other hand, the opening of the
Berlin Wall brought the end of the Cold War but much remains to be done before we can talk of
the dawning of a new age.

2. From November the Ninth to November the Eleventh in 1918: The Three Days that
Changed Germany and the World Forever.
On the ninth of November 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm lost the position of Germany's head of state
when Prince Max von Baden, the German Empire's last chancellor, transferred the powers of his
office to FriedrichEbert, the leader of a three-party coalition of parties - his party, the SPD
(Social Democrats), the Catholic Centre Party and the German Liberal Party - which had attained
a dominant position in the Reichstag. On the same day Philipp Scheidemann, a leading member
of the SPD, declaredfrom a window of the Reichstag that the Kaiser had abdicated. The fact that
the Kaiser had not truly done so made no difference. The German monarchy was over for good .
On the following day Ebert receivedan unexpected phone call from General Wilhelm Groener
the head of the joint military command structure that exercised authority over the German armed
forces in the Kaiser's name, although the Kaiser was by now the Emperor in name only. The war
was not over, albeit only a day off. but its end was imminent. The western allies had made it
clear that there would be no peace settlement as long as Wilhelm was still on the throne, Groener
made a surprising proposal. The military would defend the prospective government - on certain
conditions, of course, chief among them being an acceptance that the military should retain
independence from civil control and would thus pose 'a state within the state.' The parties agreed
that Ebert's provisional regime would draw up a constitution that ensured that a future president
could suspend the normal parliamentary process‘inthe case of need' as when a revolution
threatened or any situation arose that the President saw as dangerous. Was this deal a sensible
arrangement or a pact with the devil that promised short-term benefits but denied the attainment
of long-term goals? Clearlya new government would have to rely on military support of some
kind in a period of massive change and volatile politics with the radical wing of the socialist
movement under the direction of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg lurching towards the
Russian soviet model of state control.
In one way or another the Kaiser, von Hindenburg, Ludendorff and Groener himself endorsed the
Ebert-Groener deal, though its terms were not revealed to the public until 1925. However, those
named above interpreted its import in very different ways. To Ludendorff the deal offered a
chance to lumber the new parliament with responsibility for expected reverses that Ebert and his
coalition would inevitably have to suffer in their dealings with the western allies and when
contending with social unrest. Besides, the deal would also divert attention from the failure of
von Hindenburg and Ludendorff in the conduct of the war by pinning blame on certain 'traiterous
elements' that undermined the patriotic war effort. The so-called'stab-in-the back- myth' was
already in the making. Groener himself, I contend, did not share in this cynical construction if we
take his subsequent career as a loyal servant of the Weimar Republic into account., in which role
he did his best to resist the inroads of Nazi influence.
On the eleventh of November Matteas Erzberger, the leader of the Catholic Centre party, signed
the document that certified his acceptance of the Armistice provisions on behalf of the German
nation and thus acknowledged his country's defeat after over four years of horrendous warfare. In
view of his assassination on August 28 in 1921 by agents of an ultra-nationalist paramilitary
group, a successor of the infamous Ehrhardt Brigade which had orchestrated the murders of Karl
Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg on the 15th of January in 1919, he also signed his own death
warrant.

3. If any three people became the chief objects of the most intense hatred in the minds of ultra-
nationalists at the end of the Great War three candidates for this dubious honour stand out: Karl
Liebknecht, Rosa Luxembourg and, yes, Philipp Erzberger, neither a socialistnor a Jew. Though
swept up by pro-war enthusiasm in 1914 he came round to the recognition that continued warfare
proved futile and injurious to the true interests of the suffering German people. Ebert, who had
enough trouble on his hands anyway , must have felt slightly relievedthat no member of his own
party would incur the odium that attached to any German who endorsed the Armistice's
provisions, however necessary and however inevitable such a humiliation was, even in the eyes
of the Kaiser, von Hindenburg and Ludendorff.
The Eber-Groener deal could not itself have encouraged the culture of violence and intrigue that
marred not least the reputation of the SPD itself during 1919 and 1920 as its terms were not
made public, but those who led contingents of the Freikorps down the path of murder and
terrorism were under the impression that they could continue their activities with impunity when
judges, soldiers and politicians turned a blind eye to their criminal pursuits. Gustav Noske, the
first minister of home security in the provisional government, sided with the forces of reaction
and brutal suppression rather than with workers and defenders of parliamentary government as
when the short-lived Kapp Putsch took place to be followed immediately by the crushing of the
Ruhr workers' rebellionwith ruthless energy.
The stresses caused by popular resentment as the Versailles Treaty were made known, by the
tensions of a situation close to civil war and the spectre of the Rhineland's secessionfrom Berlin
frittered away the initial advantages enjoyed by the SPD-led 'coalitionof the three colours of
democracy, (black for the Catholic Centre Party, red for the SPD and gold for the Free German
Democrats (the colours that composed the symbol of hope for a unified and democratic Germany
since 1848). In the first election of the Weimar Republic the SPD could now muster less than
forty per cent of the electorate's votes, which made it increasingly difficult to form viable
majorities in parliament, if t all. Were the seeds of the Weimar Republic's decline and fall sown
before its establishment, perhaps even during the three-day period of transition from November
the Ninth until to November 11 and the end of what once went by the name of 'The Great War.'
From Rose Monday to Ash Wednesday in 1933
The term Hitler's 'Machtergreifung' suggests by the very use of the word meaning 'seizure' that
Hitler became the dictator of Germany in one fell swoop, possibly in the course of an hour or a
day. In fact the series of events that led to Hitler's dictatorship were part of a process, not a single
event. I suggest that this process passed through three stages, each of which did begin on a
certain day, namely: The 30th of January when Reichs President Paul von Hindenburg appointed
Adolf Hitler to the position of Reichs Chancellor. The 28th of February, when in response to the
outbreak of the Reichstag fire on the previous day, a 'state of emergency' was instated by
activating Article 48 in the Weimar constitution, which withdrew the core civil rights so essential
for the maintenance of a democratic state in Germany. Finally the coup de grace, the 23rd. of
March when the Reichstag, now a rump after the Communist delegates had been expelled from
the chamber, passed the Enabling Law. Though this did not abolish the Reichstag altogether, it
robbed the parliament of all effective power and entitled Hitler to rule by decree from then
onwards.At the beginning of first stage in this threefold process Hitler addressed the German

4. nation in a radio broadcast and declared that he would make Germany great again by taking
measures to boost the German economy and build up its military forces without regard to the
terms of the Versailles Treaty. To the surprise and dismay to his prospective coalition partner,
Alfred Hugenberg, the leader of the German Liberal People's Party (DLVP), Hitler, on the point
of receiving the chancellorship, announced his intention to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a
general election to be held on the 5th of March. At this point Hugenberg threatened to withdraw
from the imminent coalition as he feared that his small party would be cut to pieces by the fallout
of the election on the 5th of March. He did overcome his misgivings, however, on the expection
that he and von Hindenburg could always counter any effort on Hitler's part to dominate the
government. The DLVP held nine ministerial seats in new government while only two fellow
members of the National-Socialist Party would join Hitler as members of his cabinet. Hugenberg
also calculated that Hitler needed the DLVP to achieve his goal of being able to dispense with
parliamentary control altogether by the passing of the Enabling Act, a provisionanchored in the
Constitution of the Weimar Republic, that could only come into force if two thirds of delegates
present in the chamber voted it in. In accord with the motto "If you can't break a racket, join it,''
Hugenberg, already a highly influential press baron in his own right, relished the prospect of
enhancing his standing in the world of big business.
The coffers of the Nazi party were exhausted due to outlays required by two general elections in
1932. Hermann Goering, the minister without portfolio in Hitler's cabinet also had a dab hand in
the art of wheeling and dealing with the high and mighty in business and high finance and thus
was well qualified to play the role of the Nazi's public relations man. Furthermore he held the
honorary title of President of the Reichstag, a privilege awarded to the party with the most seats
in parliament. This position allowed him the use of his official residence as a suitable venue for
'the secret meeting of the 20th of February.' Before coming onto that subject, I point to an ugly
aspect of Goering's character that was at first obscured by his apparent affability and charm. In a
short time he would become the head of Prussian police force and this held the lion's share of the
aggregate of all police departments in Germany. In due course he founded the Gestapo. The
Nazis. ability to control the police was reinforced by Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior in
Hitler's cabinet. With full police backing Hitler was no longer solely dependent on the
involvement of the disreputable SA storm troopers in the work of intimidating those who were
ready to stand up to Hitler's demolition of the Weimar Republic and democratic rights. Hitler had
only two Nazi colleagues in his cabinet but this smallness of number was offset be the strategic
significance of the mandates they held. However, Hitler did not want to shake von Hindenburg
and Hugenberg out of their complaisant belief that he posed no great danger to their interests.
Indeed, at this juncture Hitler could not afford to blatantly affront the sensitivities of prospective
voters in the middle ground between the extremes of right and left. For much the same reason he
had toned down the more frenzied expressions of anti-Semitic hostility in the two 1932 election
campaigns. SA operatives were already undertaking covert operations against members of the
Communist party and vocal defenders of democracy but they had to tread warilywhen dealing
with Konrad Adenauer, the mayor of Cologne. On the 17th of February Hitler visited Cologne to
attend a local gathering of the Nazi party. An SA contingent placed swastika symbols along the
sides of the Deutz Bridge that connected the old city of Cologne to Deutz, originally a separate
town on the right bank of the Rhine. Adenauer ordered the removal of the offending flags on
legal grounds as Hitler's visit was occasioned by a matter of concern to the Nazi party but not to
the German nation as a whole. Hitler, though infuriated by what to him was an act of outright

5. defiance, hesitated to call upon the SA to deal with Adenauer in the customary way. It was only
in the following March that Adenauer was forced to leave Cologne under the threat of a belated
strike by the SA, and only on the 17th of June that he was finally dismissed from his office.
Cologne and the surrounding Rhineland and region of Westphalia were areas where the
National Socialists came off worst in the 1932 general elections, gaining as little as about 20 %
of the total vote. Joseph Goebbels, a Rhinelander himself, was particularly sensitive to the mood
in his native region and would later advise against the use of brutal force against the Archbishop
of Muenster, Clemens August Graf von Galen, after his moral influence had curbed (but not fully
extinguished) the Nazi's use of euthanasia and forced sterilization against mentally or physically
handicapped German children.
It is now Monday the twentieth of February, the date of a secret meeting attended by Hermann
Goering, Hitler himself and twenty prominent and highly influential representatives of German
industry and its banking and financial sectors. They owned or directed companies with
prestigious names that included Krupp, Siemens, IG Farben, Opel and Telefunken and they held
many a purse string in their hands as a result. The purpose of the meeting was quite simply that
of raising funds for the benefit of the Nazi party to the tune of three million Reichsmark, as
suggested at the end of the meeting. In fact the sum of all donations amounted to 'only' 2,07,100
Reichmarks, which may have been a disappointment to some, though not to Joseph Goebbels. He
rejoicedon hearing news of the success achieved by the fundraising operation and looked
forward to the replacement of the drab furnishings and decor of his headquarters by something
more impressive and dignified. Hitler, dressed like an business executive in a smart well tailored
suit, delivereda lengthy speech which included an assurance that he fully respected the principle
of the inviolability of private property and a promise to invest heavily in the manufacture of
armaments, in mining and civil engineering, as in the industrial concerns and companies
governed by members of his audience. Furthermore, he emphasized his hostility to the
Communist party, which he intended to crush completely Gustav Krupp endorsed the contents of
Hitler's speech and welcomed Hitler's affirmation concerning the sanctity of private property and
capitalist enterprise. Finally, the participants were given details of the ways and means of making
their respective contributions. Some of the companies represented at the secret meeting would in
later years involve themselves in the exploitation of slave labour and, in the case of a subsidiary
firm owned by IG Farben, the production of Zyklon B, supposedly for use as 'a pesticide.' In
such cases there was no longer a place for making excuses based on the argument that there was
no way for anyone foresee the evils Hitler and the Nazis had in store.
We now come to second and most decisive stage of Hitler's Machtergreifung. It began on the
27th of February in reaction to the Reichstag fire that occurred after nightfall, but what happened
during daylight hours on that day? Not that much unless you happened to be in the area of
Cologne. It was Rose Monday after two years of economic paucity when the festivity had to be
cancelled. The same day marked the beginning of the month of Adar in the Jewishreligious
calendar. The highpoint of this month is the festival of Purim that commemorates the dramatic
events recorded to the book of Esther in the Bible. The narrative of this book tells of a wicked
plot against the Jews of Persia. Haman, the instigator of this plot. laid plans to destroy the entire
Jewish
community on an appointed day but this evil design was thwarted by Esther, the king's beloved
consort and a Jewess.The story is widelyheld to be the first case in history of an attempt to

6. eradicate all Jews by perpetrating a holocaust.
We now turn our attention to an event that occurred after nightfall on the 27th of February, the
infamous conflagration that signaled the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of
Hitler's rule. Around nine o'clockp.m. people began noticing indications of fire within the
Reichstag building. The police and fire brigade were duly notified. Goering was at the scene very
early when the police arrested a young Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, on a charge of arson.
Van der Lubbe admitted that he had laid the fire and added that he had done so out of his
personal convictions as a convinced Communist without the assistance or encouragement of
accomplices. The very mention of the word 'Communist' was enough to prompt Goering to assert
that the entire Communist party was behind a conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag and
unleash a Communist revolution. He omitted any reference to van der Lubbe's denial that he had
any accomplices. If these didn't exist Goering would have to invent them. Three Bulgarian
Communists were accused of aiding van der Lubbe on the night of the 27th. of February but
when van der Lubbe's case came up for trial before the Supreme Court in September 1933 the
presiding judge found insufficient evidence to find the Bulgarian defendants guilty. This verdict
so angered Hitler that the infamous Volksgericht (People' Court) was established for the purpose
of dealing with so-called'political crimes.' Short of a forensically based legal foundation for
asserting that the Communist Party in toto had instigated the fire, Hitler claimed as though in a
flash of inspired insight that the fire was a message from heaven to the effect that 'the
Communists' were about to launch a massive attack against the state and the German people. It
was dangerous for anyone else to claim the authority of prophetic insight when making a
pronouncement on the Reichstag fire. A certain self-proclaimed mystic foresaw a 'great blaze' in
the area of the Reichstag before the fire actually broke out. The man in question had assumed the
identity of a Dane with name of Erik Jan Hanussen. Hitler was impressed by his aura of
spirituality and learned from him useful techniques in speech deliveryand quasi-theatrical
gesturing. When Hanussen could no longer conceal his Jewishorigins he was ejected from Nazi
circles and assassinated by a death squad. Had he heard too much on the grapevine or was he
really able to tell the future? It is strange how revolutionary times produce sinister figures like
Joseph Balsamo, Rasputin and Hanussen. On the following day President Paul von Hindenburg
accepted Goering's assertion that the fire was the work of the Communists uncritically and
without demur. His signature headed those of Hitler and Wilhelm Frick on the document that
abrogated parts of the Weimar constitution that were supposed to safeguard basic human rights.
The question as to who really started the fire has never found an incontestable answer but if one
is guided by the principle indicated by the Latin tag 'Cui bono' (who has the most to gain), one
may well suspect that Goering had a hand in the matter of the Reichstag fire, directly or
indirectly. On the 28th of February Paul von Hindenburg authorized theintroduction of what
came to be known as the Reichstag Fire Decree. Under its provisions essential civil rights were
annulled, namely habeas corpus, freedom of the press, freedom of public assembly and
protection from arbitrary arrest. On March the 3rd.one of the first to fall victim to the new order
was Ernst Thaelmann the leader of the Communist Party, who became an early inmate of the
newly created mode of detention, the concentration camp. The Communists could still take part
in the election on March 5 but only in keeping with a ploy to weaken the SPD. After the election
Communist delegates were denied entry to parliamentary sessions, which after the fire were held
in an opera theatre. The scene was now set for the inauguration of the third stage of Hitler's
Machtergreifung.

7. On 23 March the Reichstag voted away its legitimacy as Germany's legislative body In
accordance with article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This stipulated that a two thirds majority
of votes cast by deputies in the chamber permitted the chancellor to rule by decree without
deference to a Reichstag that had now become a mere platform for inconsequential speeches and
an organ of propaganda. The majority of two thirds was made possible by the exclusion of all
Communist deputies and the fact that the SPD could not muster enough votes to block the
passing of the Enabling decree. Even the Centrum party voted for the measure in a tide of anti-
Communist panic, some of its delegates not wishing to rock the boat when the prospect of the
Reichskonkordat between the Vatican and the German Reich was very much in their minds.
As from the end of March anti-Jewish measures limiting access to schools, the learned
professions, government posts and medical facilities came into effect On the rare occasion that
von Hindenburg objected to Nazi intrusions into civil life he reversed a decree that retracted
from Jewishveterans medals bestowed on them in recognition their acts of valour during the
First World War. The SA began harassing Jewishstore shopkeepers by such acts as daubing the
slogan 'Don't buy Jewish goods' on shop windows. By July 14th the regime had eliminated the
last tokens of democracy in Germany, dissolved trade unions and all non-Nazi political parties
and youth organizations.
One institution still remained outside the total control of Hitler and the Nazis - the army headed
by one of Hitler's most determined adversaries General Kurt von Schleicher, Hitler 's immediate
predecessor in the office of chancellor. Hitler and von Hindenberg were aware of the danger that
the military could stage a coup d'etat, especiallyas it resented the freedom of action accorded to
the SA seen as a private army of its own. Hitler waited until June 30th. in 1934 before killing
two birds with one stone by arresting and executing the leadership of the SA in the course of ‘the
Night of the Long Knives’ and also by ordering a death squad to assassinate Schleicher. After the
death of President von Hindenburg in 1934 Hitler reached the pinnacle of power by becoming
the Fuehrer and in that capacity he was both chancellor and head of state. All members of the
armed force were obliged to swear an idolatrous oath of unconditional obedience to Hitler in
person. The Machtergreifung was now complete.
KONRAD ADENAUER, 'DER ALTE'
The first political joke I learned in Germany:
Adenauer to grandchild: What do you want to be when you're grown up, dear child?
Answer: Federal Chancellor, Granddad.
Adenauer: But we already have a Federal Chancellor, don't we?
Konrad Adenauer was born in 1876. In his childhood he experienced life in Germany during the
heyday of Bismarck's power and influence. In his youth he witnessed the fall of Bismarck and
the arrival of an age of military pomp and Prussian glory under the reign of Wilhelm II. In his
prime of life the First World War broke out. At 45 he found himself in the midst of an acute
social and economic crisis at very heart of his native Rhineland when urban warfare was raging
in the Ruhr area. No wonder he contemplated
the secession of the Rhineland from the rest of Germany where in his opinion Prussianism held
an all too dominant influence. Now into his early fifties and the long-time mayor of Cologne, he

8. defied Hitler by ordering the removal of swastika flags strung along the Deutzer Bridge over the
Rhine. On reaching a pensionable age he
languished in a concentration camp. To cut a long story short, it was only at the age of 73, when
those blessed with the attainment of a ripe old age should enjoy the pleasures of retirement, that
Adenauer became the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, the occasion that
launched him into world fame and thus earned him a permanent place in worldwide public
consciousness. Nor did his progress end there. At 84, President Biden take note, he ran for
theoffice of Federal Chancellor in the first general election to be held in West Germany after the
war.Does Adenauer deserve only praise and honour in other matters with political opponents,
and even with close political associates, he could prove peevish not to say vindictive at times, as
in the case with his dealings with Ludwig Erhard, the finance minister to whom many attribute
the success of 'the German economic miracle.' Perhaps he unwittingly internalized precisely
those elements of Prussianism that he so keenly opposed.
Does Adenauer deserve only praise and honour in other matters? He is more vulnerable to
criticism for things he did in his pre-war years, his willingness to abandon the Rhineland to the
French sphere of influence, his readiness to countenance tactical alliances between his Center
Party and the National Socialists in the vain hope that shared responsibility would somehow
tame the Nazis, but even Heinrich Bruenning, as leader of the Center Party, was also prepared to
go so far. The events that attend Hitler's Machtergreifung, his eizure of power, including the
issue of his order to pull down the swastika flags mentioned earlier disabused Adenauer of any
notion that there could be any kind of political dialogue with the Nazis. Then there is the
reproach that Adenauer was bigoted when dealing with Prussians and even Protestants and non-
Catholics in general. True, he did not want to open the Center Party to the membership of non-
Catholics, nor was he ready to cooperate with Gustav Stresemann, by no means a typical
'Prussian.' and his Liberal Party despite the latter's great contribution to improved relations
between Germany and its former enemies. After the war Adenauer made up for his former
frostiness with political opponents, whether Socialist, Communist or simply 'Prussian.' The
newly formed CDU imposed no limitations to membership and candidacy. Adenauer took a bold
step when meeting the leadership of the Soviet Union to negotiate the release of the remaining
German prisoners of war in the Soviet state. Did Adenauer have reservations about encouraging
German re-unification? Yes, but out of the recognition that a premature re unification before
defining the Federal Republic's status with the Western alliance, would lead his nation into a
state of mishmash and contention between conflicting political forces. Subsequent events proved
him right as East German regions became states within the existent framework of the Federal
Republic without confronting insurmountable obstacles, difficult enough as these were. I do not
think, however that Adenauer would have been so sanguine about Berlin, the former Prussian
capital, becoming the centre of a reunified Germany. Having rejected his early secessionist
leanings during the Weimar Republic, Adenauer at least assured that his Rhineland would be the
political and cultural hub of West Germany in preference to Frankfurt am Main, the leading
contestant for this role. He would have preferred to see a smaller and closely knit European
Union based on the Franco-German accords much after the model proposed by General de
Gaulle, instead of the arguably bloated and discordant European Union of the present day. De
Gaulle also warned against unnecessarily being at loggerheads with the Russians and against
being over-reliant on the United States in matters of vital interest. It seems that Donald
Rumsfeld's "New Europeans' have taken over, and however understandable their anger with their

9. Russian neighbours on account of their historic grievances, intemperance and unrelenting ire
provide no safe guidance through the present perilous times.
Back to the Ninth of November: 1989, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Remaining
Questions about the State of Germany and the World“
We have the fairy tales by heart” (Dylan Thomas
)
Those old enough will recall the euphoria which took hold not only among Germans but
throughout the world on that day, the ninth of November in 1989,when the wall dividing west
and east Berlin “came tumbling down ”metaphorically speaking. A new world was about to
arise. The forces of democracy and enlightened capitalism were triumphant over doctrinaire
Soviet communism. Thank you Mr. Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl and the
longsuffering and courageous citizens of eastern Europe. The good news spread to the Middle
East. Suddenly, I remember it well,Israeli Jews trusted Palestinian Arab taxi drivers to take them
as passengers over long distances. Germany was “the happiest nation” in the worldand all
because an East Berlin functionary made an announcement for which he had no official backing
to the effect that East Berliners could visit West Berlin that very evening.
A similar hasty act of making a statement that should have been cleared by the relevant
authority also occurred on the ninth of November when Philipp Scheidemann proclaimed the
new German Republic in 1918.The breathtaking end of the Cold War was not the end of the
story. So Kipling was wrong after all when declaring that “East is East and West is West and
ne’er the twain shall meet.“ The chasm separating East and West since the era of Constantine
was no more. Russia was part of Europe again, just as General Charles de Gaulle had so
forcefully advocated. Russia would surely know her place as a moderately powerful and
influential nation that would have much to gain by being a cooperative and pliant partner of the
West, which entertained no aggressive or hostile designs to curtail Russia’s legitimate needs.
Russia’s concessions on the status of Berlin and its realistic acceptance of its diminished role in
Eastern Europe deserved a measure of gratitude. Russia’s retreat would not invite NATO to
move into the province formerly dominated by the Soviet Union and perishany thought that
NATO would adopt an adversarial posture against Russia herself! Moscow, in any case, had too
much chew on to think of reviving its past glory as the victor over Napoleon and Hitler.
Everybody was invited to the great celebration of rebirth, or almost everyone. One fairy was not
on the invitation list, and that fairy was History. It was wrong to slight her, as subsequent events
were to prove. Mind you, this oversight was altogether understandable at the time as it was
generally assumed in those days that History had taken ill and was probably dead already.
Notable academics and highly regarded pundits said so and they were surely the ones to know.
On October the third 1990 Germany was reunited. In the April of that year
I remember driving with a friend to East Germany in the spring of 1990. It was eerie. Everything
seemed to be suspended in a state of limbo. The massive system of high fences and barriers
dividing the two parts of German bore witness to the futility of trying to hold back the tide of

10. history. We stopped for a moment at the check point where an officer with a distant dazed look
casually beckoned us to move on without so much as a glance at our papers.
We visited Weimar and Jena,where as former students of German literature we delighted in
visiting Goethe’s house and other locations linked to the life and work of Goethe and Schiller. A
short drive to the site of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp changed our mood
understandably enough. Those iron word welded into the main gate:“Jedem das Seine: (”To
everyone according to his lot") History again.
We managed to benefit from the highly favorable exchange rate of five East German marks to
one Deutschmark, privately of course. Only one person I met was unhappy at the prospect of
reunification. At Jena and Weimar the vista presented by beautiful architecture in the classical
style found no olfactory equivalent in the ubiquitous and penetrating stench produced by the fuel
of East Germany’s answer to the people’s car, theTrabant..Problems started to arise very early
and it was obvious they would. It was not going to be easy to unite two populations, the one
schooled in economic freedom and the Western sense of democracy, the other subject to the
restraints of Marxist ideology as applied by a secretive and oppressive political elite. Then The
structures of industry and administration were different in fundamental respects. Here was no
time to waste evidently, standing idly by while evolutionary forces would gradually do their
work. The East-Mark achieved parity with the Deutschmark on a one to one basis. How
wonderful, or so it seemed to a great many East German citizens who had amassed fat savings
accounts. Apart from saving it, what else was there to do with what was to all intents and
purposes funny money in a hermetically enclosed economy where prices,wages and rents were
pegged at artificiallylow rates and stringent controls were in place banning genuine
convertibility and purchasing power on the open market? Corn in Egypt! What a windfall! There
was helicopter cash too to the tune of a hundred Deutschmarks per citizen. You could now get
real money in exchange of your East-Marks. The result was - unsurprisingly enough –a short-
lived but massive binge. What seemed so good to consumers was poison for the greater part of
East German industry (which, all things considered, had done okay despite the burdenlaid on it
by the Soviet Union). Totally uncompetitive with West German industry on the one-to-one basis
mentioned above, segments of East German industry were palmed off “for an apple and an egg”
as a common phrase in German goes,to astute Western bargain hunters, some of whom might be
more pertinently describedas unscrupulous exploiters and predators. East Germany had a good
side too, particularly in providing for free pre school care of children, a great benefit to working
mothers. All that went by the wayside. The United Germany did retain from East Germany a
handy traffic sign, a green arrow pointing to the right allowing traffic to take a turn when the
lights stood atred. Too many young people in former East Germany may have understood this as
a subliminal message in the wrong way.
The man most widely reputed to have been the architect of German unity was Hans-Dietrich
Genscher, popularly known as “Genschman,” depicted in caricatures as a figure rolling into one
elements drawn from Batman, Superman and Grandpa, an elderlybenign vampire that figured in
“The Munsters,” a popular TV series,in recognition of his large pointed ears. Like Talleyrand
years before him, Genscher as West Germany’s Foreign Secretary was sure to turn up at many a
major international conference or summit meeting on the winning side regardless of changes in
government. His most characteristic article of clothing was his yellow v-neck pullover declaring
his allegiance to the Free Democratic Party, the FDP, with its liberal economic agenda. Though

11. small in terms of its command of seats in the Federal Diet, it exercised totally disproportionate
decision-making powers by being the slight weight that tipped the scales, thus deciding who
would govern for the next four years. As Home Secretary and later Foreign Secretary Genscher
himself held the levers of Party, the FDP, with its liberal economic agenda. Though small in
terms of its command of seats in the Federal Diet, it exercised totally disproportionate decision-
making powers by being the slight weight that tipped the scales,thus deciding who would govern
for the next four years. As Home Secretary and later Foreign Secretary Genscher himself held
the levers of power like no other, even the Chancellor. In effect he was the kingmaker –or
unmaker. Some have surmised that Genscher in his competence as Home Secretary was
somewhat lackadaisical in efforts to alarm Willy Brandt about the danger of retaining Günter
Guillaume, a suspected East German spy, as his personal aide in the chancellery. The Guillaume
affair led to Brandt’s resignation in November 1974. There was, however, no shadow of doubt in
1982 that Genscher in league with Count Otto von Lambsdorff deserted Helmut Schmidt in
support of Helmut Kohl, who had lodged a constructive vote of no confidence at the
Federal Diet in the November of 1982.Genscher pleaded that throughout all the vagaries of
politics he had only the true interests of the German people at heart. He was born in the vicinity
of Halle on the eastern side of Germany and emigrated to the Federal Republic in 1952.With this
background he was well placed to understand attitudes that prevailedin both parts of Germany as
he labored to reconcile their differences. Furthermore, he was a skilled negotiator on the public
stage and a shrewd wheeler dealer behind the scenes. Always at the right place at the right time,
he played a cardinal role in guiding developments in 1989 that culminated in the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Of course, there were others who deserve the title of an architect of German unity,
Egon Bahr, Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl, but Genscher, if anyone, remained
the architect of German unity. Strange then that in 1991 the same man unleashed the process that
led inexorably to the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Why did the unity of one nation have to
entail the dismemberment of another? Genscher explained this paradox quite simply. German
unity was based on the universal principle that every people had the right to establish its
independence and sovereign nationhood. What was true for Germans was equally true for
Slovenians, Croats and Bosnians. To begin with at least, Germany’s allies and friends in the EC,
the USA and the United Nations were not quite so sanguine as Genscher himself about
recognizing Slovenia and Croatia by Christmas in 1991,that is to say, before the establishment of
a general internationally agreed framework for the settlement of the Yugoslavian question
scheduled for discussions to take place in the following year. Forebodings of troubles ahead were
entertained by Lord Carrington and Warren Christopher, who later referred
darkly to “Genscher’s war.” The real crunch came with Bosnian independence in the March of
1992. Croatia and Slovenia were relatively well defined entities in terms of cultural and religious
homogeneity. Bosnia was not, as the very mention of the word
Sarajevo broadcasts to all and sundry. But Sarajevo was for history books, being no longer
relevant for the purposes of the new age. Yugoslavian diplomats, correctly enough, pointed out
that the provinces of Yugoslavia were subject to a constitution that allowedfor the secession of
any province on the condition that this was approved by all the other provinces of the nation. It
now meant that national constitutions could be overruled by a caucus of powerful nations, not
just by the United Nations, if any portion of the populace legitimized their wishfor independence
on the basis of a referendum. The significance of this precedent was not lost on the Russian
president years later. It is right and proper to condemn the cruel and inhuman actions of rabid
nationalists, tin pot dictators and war criminals, but such harsh criticism is best voiced by those

12. who have had no part in creating the conditions under which the same atrocities they so
vociferously condemn are predictable and next to inevitable. The aftermath: the
briefest summary. When we compare the situation in the Balkans in 1991 with the state of affairs
in that area in 1999. we may well wonder at the radical changes that occurred in the meantime.
"The West," by which I mean the USA, Britain, France and Germany, had become aggressively
hostile to Serbia.-Yugoslavia, the former ally of these countries, except for Germany ofcourse,
during the worldwars of the twentieth century. No doubt, Serbia-Yugoslavia had incurred the
understandable wrath of its opponents by its inflicting or condoning atrocities again defenceless
civilians, though the Serbs were not the only ones to do so. Even so, we note a certain
asymmetry between the punishment meted out to Serbia and the official justification for this
punishment. Take Kosovo. The motive behind the decisionto separate the Kosovo from Serbia
was to protect innocent civilians at a certain crucial juncture in the Balkan conflict but this
separation was permanent and irreversible.The bombardment of Belgrade by NATO certainly
struck the Russians as a provocation, but not only Russians were taken aback by so drastic a
measure. Taking a broad view of the situation at this time we can see the final stage of the
Balkan war as part of a wider process involving military intervention ostensibly for the sake of a
humanitarian cause that also happened to bring about the fall of a regime, a notable case of this
phenomenon being the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi. Such interventions produce an asymmetric
effect in that the largely predictable aftermath of such interventions produces at least as much
suffering as they were intended to prevent, if not very much more. From the point of view of
ordinary citizens in Europe and America precipitate military interventions of the kind mentioned
above are counterproductive, to say the least. Guido Westerwelle, the German Minister of
Foreign Affairs, was harshly criticized for not wholeheartedly backing Germany's NATO allies
during the campaign against Gaddafi. NATO solidarity: good, suppressing qualms of thvose
whose conscience leads them to uphold firm principles: bad. Let us pray that the good fairy will
awaken us in good time before something nasty happens. (see opening lines).