1. Karl Lewke to KPD Berlin, 2 December 1945, Bundesarchiv-Stiftung Parteien und Massen-organisationen der ehemaligen DDR, Berlin (BA-SAPMO), DY30/IV2/11/211, 3–7. All following quotations in this paragraph are from this document.

2. On the concept of an “antifascist-democratic” order and its various meanings, see Sigrid, Meuschel, Legitimation und Parteiherrschaft in der DDR (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), 29–40Google Scholar. Although the SED announced the “building of socialism” only in 1952, the project of an antifascist-democratic order already included key elements of a socialist transformation of East German society.

3. On German soldiers on the eastern front as perpetrators, see Omer, Bartov, Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich (New York, 1993)Google Scholar and Hannes, Heer and Klaus, Naumann, eds., Vernichtungskrieg: Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1944 (Hamburg, 1995).Google Scholar

4. There is still a considerable uncertainty as to the actual numbers of German POWs in Soviet captivity. I adopt here the figure provided by Stefan, Karner, Im Archipel GUPVI: Kriegsgefangenschaft und Internierung in der Sowjetunion 1941–1956 (Munich, 1995), 79, 178.Google Scholar

5. This figure represents my own estimate for the number of POWs returning from the Soviet Union to East Germany. It is based on an adjustment of the total number of 1,125,352 returning POWs from the Soviet Union with 737,513 returning to West Germany and Berlin and 387,839 returning to East Germany until 30 June 1951, “Die angekommenen Heimkehrer bis zum 30 Juni 1951,” Bundesarchiv-Berlin (BA-Berlin), DQ1/HA0.34/33291. These figures, however, only included POWs returning through the Gronenfelde transition camp after July 1946 and seem too low in light of the figure of 2,031,743 repatriated German POWs from the Soviet Union which is based on Soviet statistics and cited by Karner, Archipel GUPVI, 79. This yields an adjusted number of approximately 1,300,000 returning POWs to West Germany and Berlin and approximately 700,000 POWs returning to the eastern zone. I have found no statistics, however, as to how many POWs went to the western zones after having initially returned to the eastern zone.

6. This last figure is cited by Karner, Archipel GUPVI, 204.

7. 50 percent of returnees were younger then 35, i.e., born after 1914, Erich Lage, “Alter und Beruf der Heimkehrer,” Arbeit und Sozialfursorge 9 (1949): 194–95.

8. On fascist conceptions of masculinity, see George, Mosse, The Image of Man: The Creation of Modern Masculinity (New York, 1996), 155–80Google Scholar, on West Germany see the contributions by Heide, Fehrenbach, Robert, Moeller, and Uta, Poiger to the forum “The ‘Remasculinization’ of Germany in the 1950s,” in Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society 24 (1998).Google Scholar

9. I adopt this phrase from Christoph, Kleßmann, “Verflechtung und Abgrenzung: Aspekte der geteilten und zusammengehörenden Nachkriegsgeschichte,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 29/30 (1995): 30–41Google Scholar. On the West German reception of POWs, see Robert, Moeller, “War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany,” American Historical Review 101 (10 1996): 1008–48Google Scholar and Frank Biess, “Survivors of Totalitarianism: Returning POWs and the Reconstruction of Masculine Citizenship in West Germany, 1945–1955,” in The Miracle Years Revisited: Toward a Cultural History of Hist Germany, ed. Hanna Schissler (Princeton, forthcoming). See also the contributions in Annette, Kaminsky, ed., Heimkehr 1948: Geschichte und Schicksal deutscher Kriegsgefangener (Munich, 1998)Google Scholar. This volume appeared too late in order to be integrated fully in this article.

10. The article does not explicitly address the influence of Soviet Military Government on the East German reception and treatment of returning POWs. Unless otherwise indicated, it assumes, however, that East German authorities acted generally within a larger ideological, political, and administrative framework that was determined by Soviet authorities, yet within which they exerted an at least limited agency in formulating specific policies. On relations between the SED and Soviet Military Government see Jan, Foitzik, “Einleitung,” in Inventor der Befehle des Obersten Chefs der sowjetischen Militäradministration in Deutschland, ed, Jan, Foitzik, (Munich, 1995), 48–54Google Scholar and Norman, Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949 (Cambridge, MA 1995), 284–317Google Scholar. For a stronger emphasis on Soviet control, see Stefan, Creuzberger, Die sowjetische Besatzungsmacht und das politische System der SBZ (Weimar, 1996).Google Scholar

11. Historians are only beginning to define the impact of the war on the eastern front on both postwar societies as a central theme of inquiry, see Klaus, Naumann, “Nachkrieg: Vernichtungskrieg, Wehrmacht und Militär in der deutschen Wahrnehmung nach 1945,” Mittelweg 36, no. 7 (1997): 11–26Google Scholar and Michael, Geyer, “Das Stigma der Gewalt und das Problem der nationalen Identität in Deutschland,” in Von der Aufgabe der Freiheit: Festschrift für Hans Mommsen, ed. Christian, Jansen et al. (Berlin, 1995), 673–98Google Scholar. Both articles, however, focus primarily on West Germany.

12. Rückblick auf das Heimkehrerlager Gronenfelde bei Frankfurt an der Oder, 1 May 1950, BA-Berlin, DO1/10/47, 1.

13. Wilhelm Pieck, “An die Heimkehrer,” 10 August 1946, BA-SAPMO, NY4036/428, 20–24; Informationsdienst, 28 August 1946, BA-Berlin, DO2/77, 35–37.

14. Ibid. The emphasis on German guilt had become especially apparent in the KPD's “appeal to the German people” from June 1945; see Jeffrey, Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanies (Cambridge, MA, 1997), 28–31.Google Scholar

15. Quotation from “Sie kehren zurück,” Neue Berliner Illustrierte 2, no. 27 (1946): 5; see also “Wir sind daheim,” Neue Berliner Illustrierte 2, no. 14 (1946): 6–7.

16. Eggerath to Ulbricht, Bericht des Kreisvorsitzenden der SED Walter Peters zu den Verhältnissen in dem Quarantänelager no. 22 Unterwellenborn, 1 November 1946, BA-SAPMO, NY 4182/1160, 56–58.

17. Bericht des Gen. Radzinski von Provinzialverwaltung Potsdam zur Heimkehreraktion Gronenfelde, 20 September 1946, BA-Berlin, DO2/76, 55–59.

18. Bericht von Gronenfelde, 15 November 1945, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/211, 1.

19. I borrow this term from Herf, Divided Memory, 30.

20. In the Berlin elections, the SED received 19.8 percent of the vote (SPD 48.7 percent), in the regional elections, the SED remained below 50 percent in all five provinces; Günter, Braun, “Wahlen und Abstimmungen,” in SBZ Handbuch, ed. Martin, Broszat et al. (Munich, 1990), 383–90.Google Scholar

21. During the early postwar period, the SED did not, for example, exert complete control over the emerging provincial administrations in the eastern zone, see Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 44–52.

22. SED-ZK an alle Landes- und Provinzialvorstände der SED, Merkblatt für die Betreuung der heimkehrenden Kriegsgefangenen, 27 June 1946, BA-SAPMO DY30/IV2/2.027/46, 2–4.

23. W. Käferstein, “Rededisposition für die Einleitung in Versammlungen mit Berichten von Heimkehrern aus der SU,” 7 November 1947, Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv, Potsdam (BLHA), Rep. 332/578, 119; Rededisposition für Heimkehrerversammlungen, BLHA, Rep. 332/542, 221–25.

24. On the activities of the Protestant Aid Society in the eastern zone, see Berichte aus der Ostzone, Archiv des Diakonischen Werkes (ADW), ZBB/835; on the Cantas, Wölky, “Heimkehrerlager Gronenfelde,” 10 July 1947, Archiv des Deutschen Caritasverbandes (ADCV), 372.2. 056; on cooperation between the church organizations and the People's Solidarity, Sitzungs-protokolle der Geschäftsführerkonferenzen, 13/14 February 1947, ADW, CA/O 139; on the perception of the People' Solidarity as a propaganda instrument for the SED, Bericht über die Zentralausschüsse der Volkssolidarität in der sowjetischen Zone, 4 June 1949, ADW, ZB 84.

25. On the women's committees in general, see Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 131–32; on activities of women's committees see documentation in BLHA, Rep. 332/.953 and Rep. 332/954; quotation from Bericht des Kreises Oberbarnim, BLHA, Rep. 332/954, 11.

26. Edith Hönig, “Stimmungsbild aus dem Rückkehrerlager der aus russischer Kriegsgefangenschaft heimkehrenden Deutschen in Frankfurt/Oder Gronenfelde,” 2 August 1946, BA-SAPMO DY30/IV2/17/56, 12.

27. On gender notions within the Communist Party, see the intriguing analysis in Eric, Weitz, Creating German Communism: From Popular Protest to Socialist State (Princeton, 1997), 188–223.Google Scholar

28. “Unsere Heimkehrer,” Die neue Heimat 2, no. 8 (1948): 10–11.

29. Paul Merker, “Die Kriegsgefangenen, Abschrift eines Artikels aus der Märkischen Volksstimme,” 7 January 1948, BLHA, Rep. 203/1075, 74–75.

30. Pack an, Genosse (für die Heimkehrer in Gronenfelde), BA-Berlin, DO2/77, 179.

31. On reeducation in Soviet captivity in general, see Smith, Arthur L., War for the German Mind: Reeducating Hitler's Soldiers (Providence, 1996), 105–23.Google Scholar

32. On the “National Committee” as a resistance organization, see Überschär, Gerd, “Das NKFD und der BDO im Kampf gegen Hitler,” in Das Nationalkomitee “Freies Deutschland” und der Bund Deutscher Offiziere, ed. Gerd, Überschär, (Frankfurt am Main, 1996), 31–51Google Scholar, on the transition from the “National Committee” to the antifascist schools, see Smith, War for the German Mind, 174–81.

33. On the SED's transformation into a “party of the new type” and the related purges, see Andreas, Malycha, Partei von Stalins Gnaden? Die Entwicklung der SED zur Partei Neuen Typs in den Jahren 1946 bis 1950 (Berlin, 1996)Google Scholar; quotation from Auszüge aus dem Referat des Gen. F. Sch., “Über die Kaderarbeit der Partei,” BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/202, 350–51.

34. Bericht an das Zentralsekretanat, 29 October 1948, BA-SAPMO, NY4036/745, 115–26.

35. Bericht, Abt. Personalpolitik, Parteischulen, 18 September 1949, BLHA, Rep. 332/759.

36. SED ZK Organisationsabteilung an Landesvorstände der SED in den Ländern, 5 July 1949, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/196, 277–78.

37. Bericht über Zusammenkurft ehemaliger Antifa-Schüler in Jena, 7 March 1951, BA-SAPMO DY30/IV2/11/204.

38. Bericht Semjonows vom 24 January 1950, in Wilhem Pieck-Aufzeichnungen zur Deutschland-politik 1945–1953, ed. Rolf, Badstübner and Wilhelm, Loth, (Berlin, 1994), 331.Google Scholar

39. Bericht über die Tätigkeit der ehemaligen Lehrer, Assistenten und Antifa-Schüler, die in der DDR wohnen, 14 March 1951, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/202, 269–274. The recruitment of former POWs to the East German people's police deserves separate analysis and will be part of my dissertation.

40. Among 1240 Antifa-students returning in 1948, only 76 had been members of the KPD or the SPD before 1933; Statistik über Antifa-Schüler, 23 March 1948, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/202, 33.

41. Kaderabteilung Dresden, Versammlung mit Heimkehrern (Zentralschülern), 24 February 1950, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/204, 52.

42. Auszüge aus dem Referat des Gen. F. Sch., “Über die Kaderarbeit der Partei,” BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/202, 350–51.

43. See antifascist returnees' complaints in Kaderabteilung Dresden, Bericht über Versammlung mit Zentralschülern, 24 February 1950, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/204, 38–55.

44. EA Heinrich Fomferra, BA-SAPMO, EA 1275/1, 155; cited in Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 43–44.

45. See Welsh, Helga A., “‘Antifaschistisch-demokratische Umwälzung’ und politische Säuberung in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone Deutschlands,” in Politische Säuberung in Europe, ed. Klaus-Dietmar, Henke et al. (Munich, 1991), 84–107Google Scholar. Alleged Nazi criminals, however, were tried in East German courts until 1950.

46. Paul Merker to Vorsitzende der Landesvorstände der SED, 6 April 1948, BA-SAPMO DY30/IV2/17/23, 162.

47. Kurt Nettball, Berichte von Kreiskonferenzen im Bereich des LV Sachsen-Anhalt mit dem Thema “Partei und Heimkehrer,” 24 August 1948, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/204, 22–24.

48. Bericht über die erste Sitzung des Unterausschusses für Heimkehrer beim Deutschen Volksrat am 30 September 1948 und 2 October 1948, BA-SAPMO DY 34/21185. The People's Council was the predecessor to the parliament of the later German Democratic Republic; on the work of the Berlin Heimkehrer Committee see the documentation in LAB, Rep. 118/53.

49. Peter Peterson to Paul Merker, 25 November 1948; Paul Merker to Genosse Peterson, 9 December 1948, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV/2.027/35, 242–45.

50. On the “de-differentiation” of East German society, see Meuschel, Legitimation und Parteiherrschaft, 10–15.

51. Grundsätze und Forderungen der Nationaldemokratischen Partei, Zonenausschuss der NDPD, 19 June 1948, BA-SAPMO, NY4090/511, 3–6; on the NDPD in general, see Dietrich Staritz,“National-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD),” in SBZ-Handbuch, 574–83.

52. Kurt Nettball, Berichte von Kreiskonferenzen im Bereich des LV Sachsen Anhalt mit dem Thema “Partei und Heimkehrer,” 24 August 1948, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/204, 22–24.

53. Memo of the NDPD Bundesvorstand, “Schluss mit der Ungewissheit,” BA-SAPMO, DY16/196L; on the changing social composition of the officer corps, see Kroener, Bernhard R., “Auf dem Weg zu einer nationalsoziahscischen Volksarmee: Die soziale Öffnung des Heeroffizierskorps im Zweiten Weltkrieg,” in Von Stalingrad zur Währungsreform: Zur Sozialgeschichte des Umbruchs in Deutschland, ed. Martin, Broszat et al. (Munich, 1989), 651–82.Google Scholar

54. Fulbrook, Mary, Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Inside the GDR, 1949–189 (New York, 1995), 22.Google Scholar

55. Rudolf Müller, “Ihnen muss geholfen werden,” BA-SAPMO DY30/1V2/11/211, 315–17; Willi Käferstein to Landesleitung der SED Potsdam, 30 March 1948, BLHA, Rep. 332/578, 126.

56. See Bessel, Richard and Jessen, Ralph, “Einleitung: Die Grenzen der Diktatur,” in Die Grenzen der Diktatur: Staat und Gesellschaft in der DDR, ed., Richard, Bessel and Ralph, Jessen, (Göttingen, 1996), 7–23.Google Scholar

57. Müller, “Ihnen muss geholfen werden,” BA-SAPMO DY30/IV2/11/211, 315–17.

58. Bericht Landeskonferenz über Fragen der Heimkehrerbetreuung, 7 June 1948, BLHA, Rep. 332/542, 103.

59. Aktennotiz für Vizepräsident Vogt, 20 June 1949, BA-Berlin, DO2/76, 172. On this conflict, see also Boldorf, Marcel, Sozialfürsorge in der SBZ/DDR 1945–1953: Ursachen, Ausmass und Bewältigung der Nachkriegsarmut (Stuttgart, 1998), 179–80.Google Scholar

60. In 1949 only, the Protestant Aid Society sent 4,000,000 kilogram of donations-in-kind to Berlin and the eastern zone, Zentralbüro Ost an der Jahreswende 1949/50, ADW/ZBB 47B. Already in 1947, the People's Solidarity was no longer capable of securing the necessary food supply for POW transports within Germany. Jahresbericht über Heimkehrerbetreuung, 10 March 1949, ADW, ZBB 206.

61. For a good survey on church/state relations in East Germany see Fulbrook, Anatomy of a Dictatorship, 87–106.

62. Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 132.

63. Was hat der DFD in der Frage der Kriegsgefangenenbetreuung getan? 16 June 1949, BLHA, Rep. 332/576, 346–47.

64. SED-ZK an alle Frauensekretariate, Betr.: Rückkehr der Kriegsgefangenen, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/17/23.

65. Die Stellung der Frau zum Heimkehrer, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/211, 596.

66. See Weitz, Creating German Communism, 227.

67. In August 1949, the GDSF planned 264 of these meetings only in the districts of the Brandenburg province, see: Arbeitsplan der Gesellschaft für Deutsch-Sowjetische Freundschaft für August 1949, BLHA, Rep. 332/725.

68. 585 out of 736 participants were SED members, see Auswertung der am 29 October 1949 stattgefundenen zonalen Heimkehrerkonferenz, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/204, 84–85. Antifascist returnees featured prominently in the local and regional leadership of the GDSF, see Lothar, Dralle, Von der Sowjetunion lernen …: Zur Geschichte der Gesellschaft für Deutsch-Sowjetische Freundschaft (Berlin, 1993), 330–38.Google Scholar

69. All citations from Protokoll der zentralen Heimkehrerkonferenz, 29 Ocotber 1949, BA-SAPMO, DY32/10057.

70. See the list of points to be discussed during the conference: Diskussionspunkte für zentrale Heimkehrerkonferenz, BA-SAPMO, DY32/10057.

71. This process followed the model for the subjective internalization of a radically changed social reality described in Peter, Berger and Thomas, Luckmann, Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit (Frankfurt am Main 1997 [1969]), 168–69Google Scholar. Interestingly, they identify the “religious conversion” as the prototype of such a transformation and refer to the adoption of this model by “political ideologies.”The notion of “rebirth” in Soviet captivity is also reflected in the title of autobiographies such as Gerhard, Dengler, Zwei Leben in einem (Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar

72. On the “externalization” of the Nazi past in East Germany, see Norbert, Frei, “NS-Vergangenheit unter Ulbricht und Adenauer,” in Die geteilte Vergangenheit, ed. Jürgen, Danyel (Berlin, 1995), 125–32.Google Scholar

73. Jürgen Kuczinsky, Protokoll der Zentralen Heimkehrerkonferenz, 29 Ocotber 1949, BA-SAPMO, DY32/10057.

74. The discovery of these positive traditions also reflected an official move away from the so-called misery conception of German history of the early postwar period that had portrayed German history exclusively as a series of failures; on this context, see Meuschel, Legitimation und Parteiherrschaft, 60–70.

75. Jürgen, Danyel, “Die geteilte Vergangenheit: Gesellschaftliche Ausgangslagen und politische Dispositionen für den Umgang mit Nationalsozialismus und Widerstand in beiden deutschen Staaten nach 1949,” in Historische DDR Forschung: Aufsätze und Studien, ed. Jürgen, Kocka (Berlin, 1993), 129–47.Google Scholar

76. Heimkehrer Willerding Protokoll der zentralen Heimkehrerkonferenz, 29 October 1949, BA-SAPMO, DY32/10057.

77. Outright anti-Semitism was another reason for the East German repression of the memory of Jewish victims, see especially Herf, Divided Memory, 69–161.

78. See Elizabeth, Heineman,“‘The Hour of the Woman’: Memories of Germany's Crisis Years and West German National Identity,” American Historical Review 101 (1996): 354–95Google Scholar as well as chapter 4 of her forthcoming book What Difference Does a Husband Make? Women and Marital Status in Germany, 1933–1961 (Berkeley, forthcoming). My thanks to Elizabeth Heineman for making her manuscript available to me.

79. Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 107. Estimates of the numbers of rapes reach from tens of thousands to two million, Heineman, “The Hour of the Woman,” 364.

80. While SED officials prefered not to discuss the issue at all, some official statements also tended to blame German women rather than Soviet soldiers for mass rape. According to this rather egregious view, Nazi propaganda had instigated such fear of Soviet soldiers among East German women that they, as “grotesque as it may sound, basically pushed themselves to be raped,” “Die schrecklichen Russen!” [n.d., probably 1945/46], BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/2.022/123, 12–15.

81. See Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 132–40.

82. Atina Grossmann, “‘A Question of Silence’: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers,” October 72 (1995): 43–63.

83. Anlage zum Protokoll vom 8 February 1951, BA-SAPMO, DY30/JIV2/3/173, 22;Verordnung über die Abkürzung der Verschollenheitsfristen, BA-SAPMO, DY30/JIV2/3/246, 32.

84. On SED attitudes toward POWs during this period in general, see Beate, Ihme-Tuchel, “Die SED und die deutschen Knegsgefangenen, 1949–1955” in Deutschland Archiv 27 (1994): 490–503.Google Scholar

85. See Wolfgang, Zank, Wirtschaft und Arbeit in Ostdeutschland: Probleme des Wiederaufbaus in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone (Munich, 1987), 43–44Google Scholar. This was of course true for returning POWs from the West as well, all of whom had returned by 1947/48. Unless otherwise indicated, the observations in this section therefore apply to POWs returning from Allied as well as from Soviet camps.

86. See Albert, Voss, “Erfassung und Arbeitslenkung der arbeitsfähigen Bevölkerung,” in Arbeit und Sozialfürsorge, Jahrbuch 1945–1947, 29–45.Google Scholar

87. Herbert Warnke to Steinke, 11 September 1946, BA-SAPMO, DY34/40/61/4508.

88. Das verhängnisvolle Defizit, 19 November 1945, Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Dresden (HStAD), Ministerium für Arbeit und Sozialfürsorge, no. 447, 8–10; on the importance of male workers, see also Ausfuhrungen der Landesarbeitsämter zur Frage der Arbeitsbeschaffung für Kriegsgefangene, BA-Berlin, DQ2/3392.

89. Heineman, What Difference Does a Husband Make?, chap. 4, 26–31, quotation on 26.

90. Das verhängnisvolle Defizit, 19 November 1945, HStAD, Ministerium für Arbeit und Sozialfürsorge, no. 447, 8–10.

91. Friedel Maker, “Frauenfunk,” 25 March 1947, BA-SAPMO DY34/2028.

92. Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 239.

93. Niederschrift über eine Sitzung der Abteilung IIb über die Durchführung der Propaganda zwecks Freiwilligenwerbung von Arbeitskräften für den Erzbergbau Aue und Kohlenbergbau, 28 August 1947, BA-Berlm, DQ2/2054.

94. Anlage zum Situationsbericht des Landesarbeitsamtes Sachsen für den Monat September 1946, 8 October 1946; Anlage zum Situationsbericht des Landesarbeitsamtes Sachsen für den Monat Februar 1947, 14 March 1947, BA-Berlin, DQ2/1933.

95. Bericht des Herrn Willi Donau in der Sitzung des Unterausschusses Arbeitseinsatz und Arbeitskräftelenkung, 8 April 1949, BA-SAPMO, DY34/21185.

96. Among POWs from the Soviet Union who returned to Saxony in August 1946, 43 percent could not be fully employed, Anlage zum Situationsbericht des Landesarbeitsamtes Sachsen für den Monat November 1946, 10 December 1946, BA, DQ2/1933.

97. Rat des Kreises Cottbus an Landesregierung Brandenburg, Betr. Argument der Kollegen gegen die Arbeitsaufnahme in der Grundstoffindustrie, BLHA, Landkreis Cottbus, Rep. 250/1275.

98. SED Landesvorstand, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialfursorge an Redaktion Freie Gewerkschaft, 16 January 1947, BLHA, Rep. 332/576, 8.

99. Protokoll der Arbeitsmimsterkonferenz, 23 and 24 September 1949, BA-SAPMO, DY34/0152.

100. Zank, Wirtschaft und Arbeit, 140. The rise in female unemployment figures derived also from a more restricted granting of social welfare provisions which forced many single women to enter the East German labor market, see Boldorf, Sozialfürsorge in der SBZ/DDR, 53–54.

101. Heineman, What Difference Does a Husband Make?, chap. 4, 38–39.

102. Ministerium für Arbeit- und Sozialfursorge an Frauensachbearbeiterinnen der Arbeitsämter des Landes Brandenburg, 21 February 1949, BLHA, 332/563, 180.

103. Hauptabteilung Umsiedler an Deutsche Wirtschaftskomission, 5 August 1948, BA-DO2/77, 74–75; Dr. Esser, Chefarzt/Willy Kalinke, Minsterialrat an alle Ärzte, Apotheker, Medizinstudenten, Ingenieure, Techniker und Geisteschaffende, die aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft zurückkehren, Mai 1948, BA-SAPMO DY30/IV2/11/211, 123.

104. See the advertising poster for coal mining reproduced in Arbeit und Sozialfürsorge. Jahrbuch 1945–1947, 59.

105. Heike, Solga, Auf dem Weg in eine klassenlose Gesellschaft: Klassenlagen und Mobilität zwischen den Generationen (Berlin, 1995)Google Scholar, 95 notes that by 1948, 50 percent of all managerial positions were occupied by former industrial or agrarian workers, indicating the onset of “professional careers which would have been inconceivable under different circumstances.”

106. Heineman, What Difference Does a Husband Make, chap. 7, 24–31 emphasizes the significance of the Company Women's Commissions (Betriebsfrauenausschüsse) which were founded in 1952 in reducing gender inequality in the workplace during the 1950s and 1960s.

107. I adopt this term from Susan, Jeffords, The Remasculinization of America: Gender and the Vietnam War (Bloomington, 1989)Google Scholar. See also its application on the West German reception of the last POWs in 1955 in Robert, Moeller, “The ‘Last Soldiers of the Great War’ and Tales of Family Reunions in the Federal Republic,” in Signs. Journal of Women and Culture in Society 24 (1998): 129–45.Google Scholar

108. On West Germany see Moeller,” The ‘Last Soldiers of the Great War’” and Biess,” Survivors of Totalitarianism.”

109. My analysis here is informed by Kathleen, Canning, “Feminist Histoy after the Linguistic Turn: Historicizing Discourse and Experience,” in Signs. Journal of Women and Culture in Society 19 (1994): 368–404.Google Scholar

110. None of the nine oral history interviews I conducted with returning POWs to East Germany nor any of the interviews with former POWs included in Lutz, Niethammer et al. , Die volkseigene Erfahrung: Eine Archäobgie des Lebens in der Industrieprovinz der DDR. 30 biographische Eröffhungen (Berlin, 1991)Google Scholar suggest an identification with the SED's interpretation of captivity as antifascist conversion. I am aware of the fact, however, that my interviews may have been colored by a post-1990 perspective which militated against an open identification with a state that had ceased to exist. To protect the identity of my interviewees, I have rendered their names anonymous.

111. This is the dominating feature in the interview with “Thomas G.” who returned to East Germany in December 1949. Interview with “Thomas G.,” Oral History Interview #2, 4 November 1996, my files. For similar attitudes among returnees in the West, see Lutz, Niethammer, “Heimat und Front: Versuch, zehn Kriegserinnerungen aus der Arbeiterklasse des Ruhrgebiets zu verstehen,” in “Die Jahre weiss man nicht wo man die heute hinsetzen soil”: Faschismuserfahrungen im Ruhrgebiet, ed. Lutz, Niethammer (Berlin, 1986), 227.Google Scholar

112. For an analysis of various forms of nonconformist behavior during the Nazi and the SED-dictatorships, see Christoph, Kleßmann, “Opposition und Resistenz in zwei Diktaturen in Deutschland,” Historische Zeitschrift 262 (1996): 453–80.Google Scholar

113. Bericht über den Verlauf der Ansprache im “Bali” am 14 August 1946; Bericht über das Auftreten der Genossen in Kinos zur Verkündigung der neuen Verfassung Berlins, Landesarchiv Berlin (LAB), SED LV IV/L-2/9.01/323.

114. “Bernd W.” who returned from Soviet captivity in 1949 refused to join the society until the 1970s. Oral History Interview #4, “Bernd W.,” 18 November 1996, my files; see also the interview with “Herr Apel” in Niethammer et al., Die volkseigene Erfahrung, 315; on the significance of the visibility of loyalty, see Solga, Auf dem Weg in cine klassenlose Geselhchaft, 191–92.

115. Kurt V., Bericht über die Veranstaltung des Heimkehrerausschusses Prenzlauer Berg, 25 April 1950, LAB, SED LV L-2/11/502.

116. SED Landesvorstand Sachsen, Abt. Massenagitation (Information) an Parteivorstand, 7 February 1950, HStAD, SED LV A 306, 192–94.

117. For an analysis of locally specific factors that contributed to open resistance to the regime, see Andrew, Port, “When workers rumbled: the Wismut upheaval of August 1951 in East Germany,” Social History 22 (1997): 145–73.Google Scholar

118. Oral History Interview #6,“ Werner J.,” 20 January 1997, my files.

119. Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 246.

120. On the passage of this law see James, Diehl, The Thanks of the Fatherland: German Veterans after the Second World War (Chapel Hill, 1993), 101–7Google Scholar. East German returnees were apparently very much aware of the social policy benefits that returnees in the West received, Oral History Interview #3, “Hans M.” 8 November 1996, my files.

121. Interview with “Ehepaar Apel” in Niethammer et al., Die volkseigene Erfahrung, 319; Oral History Interview #3, “Hans M.,” 8 November 1996; Oral History Interview #2, “Thomas G.,” 4 November 1996; Oral History #6, “Werner J.,” 20 January 1997, all my files.

122. Oral History Interview #2, “Thomas G.,” 4 November 1996; Oral History Interview #4, “Bernd W.,” 8 November 1996, my files.

123. Lutz, Niethammer, “Privat-Wirtschaft: Erinnerungsfragmente einer anderen Umerziehung,” in his “Hinterher merkt man, dass es richtig war, dass es schiefgegangen ist”: Nachkriegserfahrungen im Ruhrgebiet (Berlin, 1983), 93.Google Scholar

124. On SED policies toward the family see Gesine, Obertreis, Familienpolitik in der DDR, 1945–1980 (Opladen, 1986)Google Scholar; Heineman, What Difference Does a Husband Make?, chapt. 7; quotation from Bencht aus Gronenfelde, 15 and 16 August 1946, BA-SAPMO, NY4036/745, 21–22.

125. The notion of a “niche society” derives from Günter, Gaus, Wo Deutschland liegt: Eine Ortsbestimmung (Munich, 1983).Google Scholar

126. The highest divorce rate in West Germany amounted to 18.9 per 10,000 residents in 1948, in East Germany, the corresponding figure was 24.7 in 1950 (1948: 21.2), cited in Heineman, What Difference Does a Husband Make?, chap. 5, 35.

127. First quotation Aktennotiz Karl Nonnemacher, Antifa-Funktionär, 18 March 1948, BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV2/11/211, 52; second quotation Alwin Wild, “Bericht über die Eisenbahnbrigaden von Brest nach Frankfurt/Oder,” 26 June 1947, BA-Berlin, DO2/76.

128. Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 113–14, 126–28.

129. Heineman, What Difference Does a Husband Make?, chap. 5, 68. See also the testimonies of “Rudolf Ohlsen” and “Ehepaar Holscher” in Niethammer et al., Auf der Suche nach der volkseigenen Erfahrung, 355–408 and Oral History Interview #4, “Bernd W., “ 8 November 1996, my files.

130. Benedict, Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London, 1983), 6.Google Scholar

131. Dr. Heinz S. aus Weimar, “Heimkehr aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft,” 1 September 1946; BA-SAPMO, NY4182/1160; 46–49.

132. Celia, Applegate, A Nation of Provincials: The German Idea of Heimat (Berkeley, 1990)Google Scholar; Alan, Confino, The Nation as a Local Metaphor: Württemberg, Imperial Germany, and National Memory, 1871–1918 (Chapel Hill, 1997)Google Scholar. While both works differ in their interpretations of Heimat during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these differences seem less significant for the post 1945 period, see Confino, The Nation as a Local Metaphor, 127.

133. Niethammer,” “Privat-Wirtschaft,” 93 stresses this function of both family and Heimat.

134. Quotation from Morach, “Heimkehr 1948,” 5 September 1948; BA-SAPMO, DY30/IV3/11/211, 287–88.

135. Gedicht des Heimkehrers Karl T., “Die deutsche Frau,” BA-SAPMO, DY34/40/61/4508. “You German woman, so pure, so good/you will remain loyal to the Heimat with unfailing courage […] You never rest/ you never spare pains nor time/ to alleviate the lot, the pains/ of returning men/ who found the way back to the Heimat/ from faraway places/ with sick bodies but strong hearts.”

136. Confino, Nation as a Local Metaphor, 185.

137. Dr. Heinz S., ”Heimkehr aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft.”

138. Applegate, A Nation of Provincials, 240

139. Losungen für evtl. Verwendung für Veranstaltungen, SED-LV, Abt. Arbeit und Sozialfürsorge, Rundschreiben, 1 May 1950, LAB SED LV, IV L-2/11/502.

140. Klaus, Latzel, “‘Freie Bahn den Tüchtigen’: Kriegserfahrung und Perspektiven für die Nachkriegszeit in Feldpostbriefen aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg,” in Lernen aus dem Krieg? Deutsche Nachkriegszeiten 1918–1945, ed. Gottfried, Niedhart and Dieter, Riesenberger (Munich, 1992), 331–43.Google Scholar

141. “Bernd W.” remembered how he was attracted by a sense of community and a communal reconstruction effort during the early GDR while, at the same time, feeling “betrayed” as a result of the establishment of the Federal Republic. Oral History Interviews #4, “Bernd W.,” 8 November 1996, my files.

142. Solga, Auf dem Weg in die klassenlose Gesellschaft?, 159–66, 181–82, 213–14 emphasizes the gender differences within the generally high social mobility during the early GDR. This thesis is borne out by my oral history interviews: one of my interviewees became an important architect, another deputy headmaster in a high school, a third director of a factory; interviews #2, #3, #4 with “Thomas G.,” “Bernd W.,” and “Hans M.”

143. This is one of the dominating features of the interview with “Thomas G.” who emphasizes several times that “what was important to me was my job” as an architect, Oral History Interview #2, 4 November 1996, my files.

144. Weitz, Creating German Communism, 364 emphasizes this aspect of SED rule.

145. Oral History Interviews #3/2, Second Interview with “Hans M.”, 7 December 1996; my files.

146. Smith, War for the German Mind, 66; “Hermann B.” who attended an antifascist course in his camp in the Soviet Union recounts that he simply wanted to remain intellectually active and did not want to withdraw into indifference; Oral History Interviews #7, “Hermann B.,” 28 January 1997, my files.

147. Lutz, Niethammer, “Erfahrungen und Strukturen: Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der Gesellschaft der DDR,” Sozialgeschichte der DDR, ed. Hartmut, Kaelble et al. (Stuttgart, 1993), 105.Google Scholar

148. Franz, Fühmann, Der Sturz des Engels: Erfahrungen mit Dichtung (Munich, 1985), 55–57, 63–67Google Scholar. While Fühmann's account reflects an ironical and self-critical distance to this alleged transformation, such a skeptical tone is missing in other East German autobiographies like, for example, Ernst, Kehler, Einblicke und Einsichten: Erinnerungen (Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar

149. Niethammer, “Erfahrungen und Strukturen,” 105.

150. Werner K., ”‘Kampf’ der SED Kreis Erfurt gewidmet,” 26 December 1948, BA-Berlin, DO2/77, 183–85. “We see in this struggle between the elements/ a parable of our own struggle/ a glance as the future opens up/ and the certainty reaches all of us:/ victory is ours/ victory is ours/ because time is ripe/ and everybody takes an oath anew at this hour/ fight!/ fight and victory!/ loyally following the red flag/ through the roaring into the last battle/ until it breaks through the night of the peoples/ as a shining signal.”

151. On these debates see Mary, Fulbrook, “Methodologische Überlegungen zu einer Gesellschaftsgeschichte der DDR,” in Grenzen der Diktatur, ed. Bessel, and Jessen, , 274–97.Google Scholar

152. It is with respect to these similar totalitarian claims that comparisons between the Nazi and the SED dictatorships seem most appropriate. In other areas, comparisons between both regimes may yield more differences than similarities, especially regarding the different degrees of destructive energies that both regimes developed. See Jürgen, Kocka, “Nationalsozialsmus und SED-Diktatur imVergleich,” in idem, Vereinigungskrise: Zur Geschichte der Gegenwart (Göttingen, 1995), 91–101.Google Scholar