Analysis: Rehabilitation and Moral Reconstruction for Germany

Date: June 22, 1945

Author: Karl Brandt

Genre: speech

Summary Overview

Despite harsh punishment under the Treaty of Versailles, efforts to contain Germany following World War I were weak and unsuccessful: in barely two decades, Germany amassed an even more powerful military and attempted a second takeover of Europe. It took six years for the Allied forces to defeat the Germans in World War II; they then set about the task of demilitarization and rebuilding, hoping to avoid the mistakes that followed World War I.

In his speech, Karl Brandt (credited as Earl Brandt) expressed the necessity of separating the military and political aspects of Germany's rehabilitation. He agreed with completely dismantling the German military and stripping it of its resources. However, he believed the political aspects required a more diplomatic approach. He emphasized that not all German citizens are bad people, and that they too suffered greatly under the Nazi regime. Additionally, the Allies undertook to defeat Germany because of the Nazis' refusal to respect the rights of individuals and the constitutional form of government. In order to preserve the moral rationale for these actions, the Allies must approach the occupation with sound principles of justice rather than the desire to punish. Ultimately, they must help empower Germany to rebuild itself and rejoin the community of nations as a respected member.

Defining Moment

When World War I ended in 1918, world leaders and the general public alike were determined that no war of that magnitude should ever happen again. To that end, the Treaty of Versailles, signed by the Allies on June 28, 1919, provided for the demilitarization of Germany, and for reparations to be paid to countries it had damaged in the war. It also established the League of Nations, a group that would represent the combined interests of the governments of the world and promote the peaceful resolution of international disagreements.

Despite all the talk of disarmament, Germany was nonetheless able to rebuild its military to unprecedented levels in less than two decades. Then, in 1936, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler moved thirty-six thousand soldiers into the demilitarized zone of Rhineland, located on the French border. This directly violated the Treaty of Versailles, but neither France nor the United Kingdom took definitive action in response to the move. Germany thus felt empowered to take even bolder actions, eventually invading its neighbors and starting a second world war.

World War II lasted from 1939 until 1945. Once the Allies forced Germany's surrender, they had to agree to the terms under which the German government and German infrastructure was to be rebuilt. Government leaders and the general public across the world feared a repeat of the failed attempts at demilitarization following World War I. This time, they wanted to be sure that not only was Germany's military completely dismantled, but also that anything that could possibly serve as a tool of war was taken completely out of commission.

However, this sweeping intention could include coal mines and other natural resources, processing plants for raw materials such as steel, and transportation systems throughout Germany and the occupied territories. Compete destruction of this important infrastructure would effectively prevent Germany from rebuilding its military, but would also prevent it from rebuilding its economy, government, administration, and civilian life.

Many people wanted to see Germans punished for starting not one but two highly destructive attempts to take over the world. This included much of the public in the United States and Europe, as well as key leaders such as Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union. However, others—such as the German American economist Karl Brandt—advocated a more measured and magnanimous approach to the occupation. On June 22, 1945, Brandt gave a speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. He later delivered the same speech via radio address on June 24, and before the San Francisco Branch of the US Naval Academy Alumni Association on July 11. In this speech, Brandt explained his and others' belief that leaving Germany in ruins and punishing its citizens—many of whom were oppressed under the Nazi regime themselves—would only lead to further discontent, and in turn, more war.

Author Biography

Karl Brandt was born in Essen, Germany, on January 9, 1899. He attended Wurttemberg State College of Agriculture until 1921, and received his doctorate in agriculture from the University of Berlin in 1926. He was appointed professor of agriculture at the University of Berlin, and worked with organizations such as the German Farm Tenants' Bank and the German Short-Term Farm Credit Administration.

In 1933, as Hitler and the Nazi Party rose to power, Brandt immigrated to the United States. He assumed a position as professor of agricultural economics at the New School for Social Research in New York, and devoted much effort throughout the 1930s to helping German friends and scholars immigrate to the United States. He became professor of agricultural economics at the Food Research Institute of Stanford University in California in 1938. He served as associate director beginning in 1952, and as director from 1962 to 1964. Prior to his retirement, he published more than 120 articles on a variety of topics related to economic aspects of farming, trade, and wartime management of food and agriculture. Brandt died on July 8, 1975.

Document Analysis

After more than five years of fighting, the Allied forces defeated the German military and the Nazi Party, bringing an end to World War II. In his speech, Karl Brandt explains that the United States was instrumental in this success, and now has “the challenge, the privilege, and the responsibility” to determine the future of Germany and the German people. “Whether Europe will have peace depends largely on how good a moral basis for that peace we build,” he says.

Brandt believes that the most successful approach to building peace in Europe is to take a hard stance on military actions, while taking a peaceful political approach that will allow Germans to rebuild their country, work their way out of poverty, and “find their way back into the family of nations as a respected member.”

He agrees with many analysts that the German armed forces, including their equipment and military installations, must be completely destroyed. He believes this was not sufficiently pursued following World War I, and many governments chose to ignore the signs that Hitler was rebuilding a significant military. Rather than simply reducing the size of the military, as was done following World War I, the German military must be completely dissolved.

The political aspect is more challenging. He understands why the public is angry with the German people, but implores them to recognize that the average German had little to no control over what was happening to them. Those who protested or attempted to thwart the system were killed or imprisoned, and Germans had been subject to the terrors of the Nazi rule for several years prior to its occupation of Europe. He says it would be a “violation of the basic principles of justice” to condemn all of the German people to suffering and starvation as punishment for the actions of a criminal regime.

Additionally, since the Allies undertook to defeat Germany because the Nazis were violating the right of individuals and the “basic tenets of constitutional government,” they must avoid subjecting the German people to the same conditions that the Nazis were forcing upon people. New laws must not be established arbitrarily simply to punish the Germans, trials of war criminals must be fair and held to the standards of fair government, and the Geneva Convention must be followed.

The Allies must help Germany create a new government and administration, composed of representatives of all political groups. Germany must be allowed to continue to exist and govern as a whole, and the German people must accomplish their own “denazification.” He says that to facilitate this, the Allies must work with German people who “believe in moral principles and law” to rebuild.

Glossary

anaesthetize: alternative spelling of anesthetize, which means to render physically insensible

brigand: a bandit, especially one of a band of robbers

canton: a small territorial district, especially one of the states of the Swiss confederation

envisage: to contemplate; visualize

non-fraternization: opposite of fraternization, which means to associate in a fraternal or friendly way

quisling: a person who betrays his or her own country by aiding an invading enemy; fifth columnist

Bibliography and Additional Reading

Bark, Dennis L., and David R. Gress. A History of West Germany, Volume 1: From Shadow to Substance, 1945–1963. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. Print.

Campbell, W. Glenn, Walter P. Falcon, and William O. Jones. “Memorial Resolution: Karl Brandt (1899–1975).” 1975. Historical Society. Stanford U, 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Milward, Alan S. The Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1945–51. London: Routledge, 1987. Print.

Shuster, Richard J. German Disarmament after World War I: The Diplomacy of International Arms Inspection, 1920–1931. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

“Treaty of Versailles, 1919: Impact of World War I.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 20 June 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.