Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Following the general election of September, 1953, the German Social Democratic party (SPD) finds itself in the role of a sole opposition party, a phenomenon in modern German politics. Confronted by a nearly solid phalanx of anti-socialist parties, the SPD approaches a period of crisis and of continuous strain. The ability of the Government to marshal an absolute majority at all times and a two-thirds majority when need be, threatens to relegate the party to virtual legislative impotence. Yet there are several factors militating for the continued existence of the SPD as a vigorous opposition party. Not having to compete with an irresponsible Communist organization in Western Germany, the SPD can be considered as the principal representative of the working class. Furthermore, its long history, its highly developed organizational apparatus, the discipline and devotion of its rank and file, coupled with the will to attain power, make the SPD a factor of relative significance in German as well as in European politics.
On the other hand, the dynamics of the East-West conflict, and especially Germany's geographic and political relation to it, tend to affect the political fortunes of the party somewhat adversely. The international situation represents a deadly challenge to the SPD and its survival as an influential political organization may well depend upon its ability to generate a counterforce to the pressures exerted upon Germany by the super-powers.
1 It must be noted, however, that between the years 1949 and 1951 dues-paying membership dropped from 736,218 to 649,529. Jahrbuch der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands, 1950–1951 (Bonn, 1952), p. 170Google Scholar.
2 Crossmann, R. H. S., “Towards a Philosophy of Socialism”, New Fabian Essays (London, 1952), p. 32Google Scholar.
3 For a discussion of the transformation of socialism, see de Man, Henry, The Psychology of Socialism (New York, 1927)Google Scholar, Ch. 11; Berlau, Joseph, The German Social Democratic Party, 1914–1921 (New York, 1949)Google Scholar, Ch. 1; and Healey, Denis, “Power Politics and the Labour Party”, New Fabian Essays, pp. 161–79Google Scholar.
4 SPD, Protocoll des Parteitages 1907, as cited in Berlau, p. 46.
5 Germany, Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstags, Stenographische Berichte, Band 327, pp. 1408–9 (07 9, 1919)Google Scholar.
6 Severing, Karl, Mein Lebensweg, 2 vols. (Köln, 1950), Vol. 2, pp. 464–66, 480–81Google Scholar.
7 See Matthias, Erich, Sozialdemokratie und Nation (Stuttgart, 1952), esp. pp. 246–56Google Scholar.
8 See Erler, Fritz, Soll Deutschland Rüsten?, SPD pamphlet, pp. 53–55Google Scholar; also Rosenberg, Arthur, Geschichte der deutschen Republik (Karlsbad, 1935), pp. 101–9Google Scholar; and Matthias, p. 62.
9 For a competent discussion of the events leading to the merger of the Communist party and the SPD in Eastern Germany, see Nettl, J. P., The Eastern Zone and Soviet Policy in Germany, 1945–50 (London, 1951)Google Scholar, Ch. 4.
10 de Man, , The Psychology of Socialism (cited in note 3), p. 306Google Scholar.
11 Coker, Francis W., Recent Political Thought (New York, 1934), pp. 135 ff.Google Scholar
12 Schumacher, Kurt et al. , Das Programm der Opposition, SPD pamphlet (Hanover, 1949), p. 43Google Scholar.
13 Jahrbuch der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands, 1948–1949 (Hanover, 1950), pp. 114–15.Google Scholar
14 Ibid., p. 136.
15 Clay, Lucius D., Decision in Germany (New York, 1950), p. 431Google Scholar.
16 Office of Military Government for Germany (OMGUS), Documents on the Creation of the German Federal Constitution (Berlin, 1949), p. 134Google Scholar; also, Was Wir Wollen, SPD pamphlet, p. 7.
17 Jahrbuch der SPD, 1948–1949, pp. 12–18, 138–39.
18 See “The Political Aspects of the Refugee Problem”, Office of the U. S. High Commissioner for Germany (HICOG), 4th Quarterly Report, pp. 30–34 (07–Sept., 1950)Google Scholar.
19 Socialist International Information, Vol. 2, p. 13 (11 22, 1952)Google Scholar; also OMGUS, Government and Its Administration in the Soviet Zone of Germany (1947), pp. 27–38Google Scholar.
20 New York Times, 07 10, 1949, p. 10Google Scholar.
21 Ibid., July 24, 1949, p. 3; Jahrbuch der SPD, 1950–1951, p. 16.
22 The SPD elected 131 representatives of a total of 402 in the Bundestag and held 20 of the 43 seats in the Bundesrat. The party's strength in the lower house entitled it to the chairmanship of several committees, of which the Committee on the Occupation Statute and Foreign Affairs and the Committee on All-German Affairs were the most important for present purposes. The leadership in the former body was assumed by Carlo Schmid, the party's leading foreign policy expert. The leadership of the parliamentary delegation itself was left in the hands of Kurt Schumacher, who was assisted by Erich Ollenhauer and Carlo Schmid. For election statistics, see HICOG, Elections and Political Parties in Germany, 1945–1952 (Bad Godesberg, 1952)Google Scholar; also “Die Bundestagswahl am 14 August 1949”, Statistik Der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band 10 (Wiesbaden, 1952)Google Scholar.
23 See Kirchheimer, Otto and Price, Arnold H., “Analysis and Effects of the Elections in Western Germany”, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 21, p. 568 (10 17, 1949)Google Scholar.
24 The Dürkheimer Program, in Das Programm der Opposition (cited in note 12), p. 45Google Scholar.
25 Ibid., pp. 5–39.
26 Germany, Bundestag, Stenographische Berichte (hereafter cited as Bundestag), 6 Session, p. 42 (09 21, 1949)Google Scholar.
27 Bundestag, 10 Session, pp. 183–84 (09 29, 1949)Google Scholar.
28 Bundestag, 18 Session, pp. 525–26 (11 24, 1949)Google Scholar.
29 HICOG, 1st Quarterly Report, Appendix VII (09–Dec., 1949)Google Scholar.
30 Bundestag, 18 Session, p. 487 (Nov. 24, 1949)Google Scholar. The party promptly submitted its case to the newly created Federal Constitutional Court; see Plischke, Elmer, The West German Federal Government (HICOG, 1952), p. 119Google Scholar.
31 Jahrbuch der SPD, 1960–1961, p. 11.
32 Bundestag, 24 Session, pp. 734–35 (12 16, 1949)Google Scholar.
33 For a discussion of the SPD's position on the subject of militarism, see Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstags, Band 391, pp. 857 ff. (12 16, 1926)Google Scholar; see also Erler, , Soll Deutschland Rüsten? (cited in note 8), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.
34 Bundestag, 24 Session, pp. 735–36. There was also, of course, the important consideration of political control. From the SPD's point of view it was of vital importance that the new army was formed and organized while a Socialist government was in a position to keep a close eye on it; see also Schulz, Klaus-Peter, Deutschland und die Verteidigung Europas, SPD pamphlet, pp. 12–13Google Scholar.
35 Cf. the debate on the European Army, Council of Europe, Consultative Assembly, Reports, 2 Session, pp. 85 ff. (Aug. 11, 1950)Google Scholar. On another occasion, Carlo Sohmid portrayed the situation rather bluntly when he observed: “It would be better to be bolshevised dwelling in an undamaged house than to be bolshevised as a cripple living in a hole in the ground.” HICOG, 5th Quarterly Report, p. 5 (10–Dec., 1950)Google Scholar.
36 Sopade (Sozialdemokratische Parteikorrespondenz), No. 898, p. 44 (June, 1950)Google Scholar.
37 Ibid., pp. 32–33.
38 Bundestag, 9 Session, p. 158 (09 28, 1949)Google Scholar, and 145 Session, p. 5781 (May 31, 1951); Schumacher, Kurt, Macht Europa Stark, SPD pamphlet (Hanover, 1951), p. 17Google Scholar.
39 See the statements by the representative of Great Britain, Mr. Lee, Council of Europe, Consultative Assembly, Reports, 1 Session, p. 290 (Aug. 17, 1949); the representatives of France, André Philip, 3 Session, pp. 246–47 (May 10, 1951), and Raul Reynaud, p. 254 (May 11, 1951).
40 Cf. Great Britain, Labour Party, Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Conference (London, 1949), p. 224; see also Schmid, Carlo on the subject of European unity, Socialist International Information, Vol. 2, pp. 11–14 (Nov. 22, 1952)Google Scholar. The SPD delegation to the Council of Europe voted against every one of the crucial proposals before that body. On every important issue they voted against the other half of the German delegation; see Consultative Assembly, Reports, 2 Session, p. 165 (Aug. 11, 1950)Google Scholar; p. 913 (Nov. 24, 1950); and p. 549 (Aug. 26, 1950).
41 Schmid, Carlo, Die Aussenpolitik der SPD, SPD pamphlet, p. 5Google Scholar.
42 Consultative Assembly, Reports, 2 Session, p. 87 (Aug. 11, 1950)Google Scholar; and Bundestag, 10 Session, p. 184 (09 29, 1949)Google Scholar.
43 Bundestag, 10 Session, p. 185.
44 A woman delegate went so far as to call the Plan “an illegitimate child of mars oeconomicus”; Bundestag, 103 Session, p. 3755 (Nov. 16, 1950)Google Scholar.
45 Sopade (cited in note 36), pp. 32–33; see also Consultative Assembly, Reports, 2 Session, pp. 211–12 (08 14, 1950)Google Scholar.
46 The SPD's position with respect to the Schuman Plan has been described in the following party publications: Was Weisst Du Vom Schuman Plan?; Der Schuman Plan Führt Nicht Nach Europa; Erich Ollenhauer, Deutschland und der Schuman Plan; Kurt Schumacher, 50 Jahre mit gebundenen Handen; and SPD und der Schuman Plan. All of the foregoing pamphlets were published between 1951 and 1952. See also Jahrbuch der SPD, 1960–1951, pp. 258–60.
47 Bundestag, 161 Session, p. 6517 (07 12, 1951)Google Scholar.
48 Bundestag, 176 Session, pp. 7216–17 (Nov. 22, 1951)Google Scholar; 182 Session pp.7611 ff. (Jan. 9–11, 1952). The SPD voted against the Plan, which passed the Bundestag 232 to 143, with 3 abstentions.
49 Frankreich und der Schuman Plan, SPD pamphlet.
50 Götterdämmerung beim Schuman Plan, SPD pamphlet (Bonn, 1953)Google Scholar.
51 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Aug. 22, 1953, p. 3Google Scholar.
52 The SPD's position on the Saar question is conveniently found in Jahrbuch der SPD, 1950–1961, pp. 77–83; see also the SPD pamphlets Die Europapolitik der SPD (Bonn, 1953), pp. 25–27Google Scholar; Protocoll, SPD Wahlkongress 10 Mai 1953 (Bonn, 1953), pp. 43–47Google Scholar; and Neuer Vorwärts, 08 21, 1953, p. 11Google Scholar.
53 Jahrbuch der SPD, pp. 256–57.
54 Die Europapolitik der SPD, pp. 26–27.
55 Protocoll, SPD Wahlkongress (1953), pp. 25–26Google Scholar.
56 Socialist International Information, Vol. 2, pp. 11–12 (10 25, 1952)Google Scholar; also Sopade, No. 927, pp. 67–69 (Nov., 1952)Google Scholar; and Fact (the Labour party monthly), Vol. 10, p. 6 (11, 1952)Google Scholar.
57 On April 3, 1952, when pressed on the subject of international socialist solidarity, Ollenhauer made it unmistakably clear that the SPD would not consider itself bound by resolutions adopted at meetings of the International. Bundestag, 204 Session, p. 8790 (April 3 and 4, 1952)Google Scholar; see also “Sozialistische Internationale”, in Jahrbuch der SPD, 1950–1951, pp. 256–71Google Scholar.
58 Bundestag, 214 Session, p. 9414 (May 23, 1952)Google Scholar. For the text of the several agreements and related documents see U. S. Senate, Convention on Relations with the Federal Republic of Germany (etc.), 82d Cong., 2d sess. (1952)Google Scholar; also Litchfield, Edward H. and Associates, Governing Postwar Germany (Ithaca, N. Y., 1953)Google Scholar, Appendix N. The SPD's position on the agreements has been laid down in these publications: Die Fesseln der Deutschen Politik: General-Vertrag und EVG-Vertrag, SPD pamphlet; and Handbuch sozialdemokratischer Politik (Bonn, 1953), pp. 71–74Google Scholar.
59 Bundestag, 214 Session, p. 9414 (05 23, 1952)Google Scholar.
60 “The unification of Germany remains more important to the peace of the world than any selfish policy of Western integration,” Schumacher, Kurt, Newsweek, Vol. 39, p. 36 (June 30, 1952)Google Scholar; see also Ollenhauer, , Vor Entscheidungen für Jahrzehnte, SPD pamphlet (Bonn, 1952), pp. 16–19Google Scholar.
61 Bundestag, 222 Session, p. 9874 (July 10, 1952)Google Scholar. The speaker raised the question of compatibility between the EDC Treaty and the Franco-Russian Pact of 1944 and expressed the fear that France, pursuing the line established by that pact, would one day seek an agreement with the Soviet Union at the expense of Germany and German unity; see Die Fesseln der Deutschen Politik: General-Vertrag und EVG-Vertrag, p. 20.
62 Bundestag, 222 Session, p. 9902.
63 Bundestag, 190 Session, p. 8115 (02 7, 1952)Google Scholar.
64 Die Europapolitik der SPD (cited in note 52), p. 16.
65 Handbuch sozialdemokratischer Politik, p. 115; also Ollenhauer, , New York Times, Aug. 13, 1953Google Scholar.
66 Ollenhauer, , Frankfurter Rundschau, Aug. 24, 1953Google Scholar.
67 Hersfelder Nachrichten, Aug. 29, 1953.
68 Bundestag, 190 Session, pp. 8110 ff., 8185 ff.
69 Erler, , Soll Deutschland Rüsten? (cited in note 8), p. 32Google Scholar; see also Vor Entscheidungen für Jahrzehnte (cited in note 60), p. 16.
70 Erler, pp. 36 ff. The vote on a resolution favoring a German defense contribution was 204 for and 156 against. The latter group included the SPD, the Communists, the Federalist Union, and Independents. Bundestag, 190 Session, p. 8248. During the election campaign, Ministerpresident Zinn of Hesse went so far as to suggest that a future German government should commit all current treaties to the wastepaper basket and proclaim Germany's independence immediately. Hessischer Presse-Dienst, June 6, 1953.
71 Protokoll, Wahlkongress (1953), p. 24Google Scholar.
72 E.g., Dr.Baader, Fritz, Deutschland Union Dienst (Bonn), July 27, 1953Google Scholar.
73 Aktions-Programm der SPD (Dortmund, 1952), p. 12Google Scholar; see Schumacher, , Macht Europa Stark (cited in note 38), pp. 28–29Google Scholar; and Ollenhauer, , Protokoll, Parteitag (1952), p. 38Google Scholar.
74 See Schmid, , Die Aussenpolitik der SPD (cited in note 41), p. 19Google Scholar; and Ollenhauer, , Bundestag, 204 Session, p. 8765 (04 3–4, 1952)Google Scholar.
75 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Aug. 29, Sept. 1, and Sept. 4, 1953.
76 Socialist International Information, Vol. 2, p. 13 (11 22, 1952)Google Scholar.
77 See Bundestag, 204 Session, p. 8773.
78 Protokoll, Wahlkongress (1953), p. 26Google Scholar; see also Berliner Montagsecho, April 27, 1953; Zinn, Miniaterpresident, Freiheit (Mainz), 05 8, 1953Google Scholar; and Ollenhauer, , Süddeutsche Zeitung, Aug. 17, 1953Google Scholar.
79 See New York Times, Sept. 4, 1953.
80 SPD Pressedienst (Bonn), 09 7, 1953Google Scholar.
81 Neuer Vorwärts (Hanover), 09 11, 1953Google Scholar.
82 Neue Ruhr-Zeitung (Essen), 09 8, 1953Google Scholar.
83 Consultative Assembly, Reports, 3 Session, pp. 246–47 (05 10, 1951)Google Scholar.
84 In 1949 the SPD polled 6,934,975 or 29.2% of all valid votes cast. In 1953 it polled 7,939,774 (second) votes or 28.8% of the total. Thus, although it registered an overall gain of 15% over 1949, its share of the total vote dropped by 0.4%. The party's representation in the Bundestag increased from 131 seats to 151. However, its share of the total membership dropped from 32.6% to 31.0%. Since there are only six parties represented in the second Bundestag, and because the four established coalition parties (CDU/CSU, FDP, DP, Center) have now been joined by the relative newcomer, the refugee party (GDB/BHE), the SPD faces an almost solid bloc of 69% on most legislative issues. The situation in the upper house, the Bundesrat, has also undergone a change to the detriment of the SPD. Whereas the party had a majority of seats in that body prior to the election, changes in the political composition of several state governments have resulted in the transfer of control of the Bundesrat to the Government side. Cf. News From Germany, Vol. 7 (09-Oct., 1953), No. 9Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.