The Uprising of 17 June in the German Democratic Republic was inevitably instrumentalized on different fronts in the Cold War. In the GDR, it was portrayed as a Western plot to undermine the first Workers’ and Peasants’ State on German soil. In the West, it was commonly held that the people of the GDR had risen up against a repressive communist regime, only to be bloodily crushed by Soviet tanks. Each side in this ideological standoff flatly rejected the other’s interpretation, or indeed any interpretation that did not concur with its own.

Bertolt Brecht’s views did not fit neatly into either narrative. In the GDR, he was regarded with hostility and suspicion in official circles: his views were inimical to the GDR’s ruling Socialist Unity Party (SED), because they focused on the failure of its disastrous policies and the need for widespread reform. In the West, his robust defense of the GDR system of beliefs rankled, and accounts of his actions on 17 June attracted venomous comment and retaliation in sociopolitical and cultural circles. Yet these accounts were constructed from a hotchpotch of facts, rumors, and legends. They are incomplete and inaccurate. In this essay, I will establish what we know of Brecht’s actions on 17 June and consider subsequent criticisms of his conduct. The main body of the essay will then explore Brecht’s views concerning 17 June and his analysis of its causes and consequences, as evidenced in diary entries, letters, and other texts that he wrote in the summer of 1953. Contrary to the common view that Brecht was complicit in the SED’s suppression of its own people, these texts demonstrate that he adopted a far more oppositional stance toward the regime, and that a reassessment of this stance is overdue.

Brecht on 17 June: Establishing the Facts

Brecht left no personal record of how he spent the day of 17 June, so we have to rely on the memoirs of his friends and colleagues and the available archive material. Since he is forever marked by his actions on 17 June, it is imperative to sift the material carefully to construct a credible account of his day. This task is not made easier by inconsistencies between statements by different eyewitnesses and critics.