The Student Movement and 1968 - Essay Example

The 1968 Movement in Germany: Causes, Nature, and Effects on Germany and the World May 9, Nearly fifty yearsafter 1968, controversies continue to develop regarding the meaning of 1968 to German history and identity. The post-war economy created a growing middle-class in West Germany, while East Germany experienced economic difficulties (Fulbrook, 199, p.215). Moreover, numerous students became critical of political apathy on the part of their parents and older generations and the authoritarianism that new political parties and leaders imposed on West and East Germany (Medeiros, 2012). The student movement in Germany flourished from 1966 to 1968, particularly because of three antecedent events: (1) after a police shot and killed, Benno Ohnesorg, a student, during the student’s demonstration in 1967 against the visiting Shah of Iran, (2) demonstrations against Axel Springer’s media monopoly, and (3) the attempted killing of Rudi Dutschke, a leader of the SDS, on 11 April 1968. The paper analyzes the causes, meanings, and effects of the student movement in Germany, and to some extent, to the world. It argues that the student movement is complex enough that it cannot be explained through one perspective alone and that it is heterogeneous in political and cultural beliefs. The student movement in Germany during the 1960s that culminated in 1968 is a product of political oppression, intergenerational differences and socio-economic changes, where the movement mirrored other similar actions all over the world. The German student movement may not be seen as successful in itself in directly changing the political order, but it did culturally change Germany and even the world because it started Germany’s cultural revolution and supported global social and political changes. Some scholars offered different analyses that seek to understand the student movement, and these analyses can be categorised into three common perspectives. Dr. Stuart Hilwig, Adams State University Professor of History, summarised these different views into three categories. He called the first conceptual category as “the delusion theorists” because they described the students as spoiled children of the bourgeoisie who merely wanted to express utopian rhetoric (Hilwig, 1998, p.322). The second conceptual analysis emphasises the intergenerational differences between the 1960s youth and their baby boomer parents (Hilwig, 1998, p.322). These “generational theorists” believe that the conflict between the disillusioned youth and the apathetic older adults is a product of their different generational experiences, values, and aspirations (Hilwig, 1998, p.322). The third conceptual analysis focuses on ideology as the organising principle of the student movement. These ideology theorists assert that the student movement happened because of deeper problems in Western society, in general, such as the failures of democracy and the continuation of class, racial, and gender conflicts and sexual restrictions (Hilwig, 1998, p.322). The paper believes that the generational and ideology theorists best explain the student movement because of the support from many scholars regarding the causes and nature of the movement as students of the global village and as “Hitler’s children,” an allusion to their post-Nazi youth (Kraushaar, 2010, p.79). Political oppression is one of the main factors that encouraged student action in the 1960s, where students wanted to offer an alternative opposition that the government lacked. In 1966, the two main West German political parties, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Christian Democrats (CDU), merged to create the Grand Coalition. The Grand Coalition selected Kurt Georg Kiesinger of the CDU to become the chancellor. The decision sparked controversy because Kiesinger served as the radio propagandist of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), also called the Nazi Party (Allinson, 2013, p.141). In addition, the formation of the Grand Coalition created social unrest because it decreased and curtailed parliamentary opposition (Allinson, 2013, p.142). With the union of CDU and the SPD, the only remaining opposition party was the relatively small organisation of the Free Democratic Party (FDP). The student movement formed part of the “extraparliamentary opposition” or APO (Von Dirke, 1997, p.34). Andrei S. Markovits, an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and American sociologist Philip S. Gorski assert that APO is not a monolithic movement. They stress that the “term APO never designated a single organisation or tendency. Rather, APO was a loosely negative alliance between a diffuse array of groups united against a shared opponent” (cited in Von Dirke, 1997, p.34). The shared opponent refers to the “Establishment” that consisted of the traditional party system and the students’ parents’ hegemonic cultural beliefs (Von Dirke, 1997, p.34). The Socialist German Student Union (SDS; Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund) served as the leader of the student movement in Germany. They organized various sit-ins and seminars from 1966 to 1967 (Medeiros, 2012). The students deviated from the SPD because of the latter’s ambiguous position on rearmament, including the nuclear armament of West Germany (Von Dirke, 1997, p.34). They felt that the SPD undercut representative democracy. Sabine von Dirke, Associate Professor of German at the University of Pittsburgh, explains the meaning of the Grand Coalition to “extraparliamentary opposition.” She states that the Grand Coalition “finalised a disenchantment with the SPD as a genuine alternative within the parliamentary system” (Von Dirke, 1997, p.34). Other scholars confirmed these ideological differences between the SDS and the SPD. The student movement departed from the SPD and other political parties because they saw the latter as unable to create genuine social reforms. One scholar highlighted the political differences between the student movement and the SPD. Klaus Meschkat, Professor at the Institute for Sociology at the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University in Hannover and a member of the member of the SDS (Socialist Student Organisation) during the 1950s, believes that it is the SPD that distanced itself from the student movement because of fundamental ideological divergences. He explains that the SDS maintained old social democratic principles that consisted of a Marxist programme, basic economic reorganisation and opposition to West Germany rearmament (Meschkat, 2008, p.40). They wanted to go back to Marxist ideologies and to contest imperialism and capitalism. The SPD leadership, however, preferred to maintain the Western Alliance and to support the entry of West Germany to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and rearmament (Meschkat, 2008, p.40). The SPD also found it acceptable to sacrifice some of their socialist goals to solidify the economic growth of the national government (Meschkat, 2008, p.40). These differences resulted to inevitable conflicts with the student movement. Moreover, Meschkat notes that SPD figures, including Herbert Wehner, wanted to use Stalinist party discipline ideas and methods on the students, whom he considered as acting rebelliously against the government (Meschkat, 2008, p.40). These SPD members intended to repress the students through “tried and tested methods” (Meschkat, 2008, p.40). Another critic stresses the disillusion in East Germany with their socialist governments. Wolfgang Templin, former member of the member of the SED (East German communist party), and currently a journalist, describes how East Germany sees 1968. For him, the student movement manifests the realisation that Eastern European governments failed to address needed social and political reforms (Templin, 2008, p. 33). These sentiments underscore the analysis that the student movement is an ideological awakening that departed from state political parties. Going back to the Grand Coalition, it forwarded laws that reflected authoritarianism, which was far from the expected political reforms from the government. The Grand Coalition increased public opposition to it because of the introduction of “emergency laws” that could be invoked anytime the government believed that the state was under threat (Allinson, 2013, p.142). The student movement perceived these emergency laws as a precursor to the use of questionable emergency powers, the likes of which Hitler also used in his time (Allinson, 2013, p.142). As part of the emergency laws, the Grand Coalition wanted to control the public educational system too through reforming German universities. In its bid to make German students more competitive, it planned to decrease graduation requirements to turn out more graduates at a more rapid rate that would support its economic plan (Medeiros, 2012). The students opposed the incursion of political control in public life and demanded greater student involvement and participation in schools and politics. The Free University of Berlin (FU) became the most active centre of the student movement because it began the string of non-violent direct action in Germany that mimicked that of other American and European universities, thereby signifying the international dimension of their movement. Meschkat notes the impact of American student action and civil rights movement practices on the 1968 German student movement. He explains that the use of sit-ins and class-to-class discussions of political and social affairs were influences of American civil rights movement leaders (Meschkat, 2008, p.41). These actions signified the international solidarity of 1968 student movements in different parts of the world. On 22 June 1966, 3,000 students from the Free University of Berlin conducted a sit-in below the window of the hall during the time when the school senate, composed of the rector, professors, and other college administrators, was conducting a meeting on planned resolutions, including limiting class requirements and providing administrators enhanced powers to expel students (Medeiros, 2012). The students asked that they would be included in the senate and that the proceedings would be transparent to all (Medeiros, 2012). They eventually passed a resolution on their own where they called for the democratisation of the university and society (Medeiros, 2012). These actions signify the connection between national and international issues. The students were successful because the limitations on students were not applied in the FU. One of the important events that increased the influence and popularity of the student movement is the shooting of Ohnesorg because it represented what the students called oppression under the fascist government. On 2 June 1967, the SDS organized a rally in Berlin in front of the opera where the Shah of Iran was attending a performance. The students protested the hypocrisy of the German Federal Republic because it supported a violent dictator (Medeiros, 2012). The government actually banned the march, but it did not stop the students. The police confronted and violently engaged with them, beating them up as they went nearer the opera. Karl-Heinz Kurras shot 26-year-old student Ohnesorg on the head that killed him (Spiegel, 2009, p.1). Kurras became the poster child for the fascist government that the students opposed (Spiegel, 2009, p.1). The universities showed the greatest outrage against the crime as students protested the range of police brutality in Germany (Medeiros, 2012). Around 10,000 marched in Frankfurt, while a silent funeral march was done on June 8 in Frankfurt and Berlin (Medeiros, 2012). On 13 June 1967, 5,000 protesters went to Berlin, where they walked in the formation where one protester had 50 students behind him/her (Medeiros, 2012). They were parodying the suggestion of the police department that an officer should be put for every fifty protesters to ensure order and control (Medeiros, 2012). The parody is only one of the many demonstrations of anti-authoritarianism characteristic of the student movement where they no longer feared the action of the state and the police against their ranks. Domestic and foreign pressures mounted and by August 1967, the mayor of Berlin and the police chief resigned (Medeiros, 2012). Their resignation underscored the success of the students against repressive governments that have failed to protect democracy and freedom. Aside from the protests that followed the death of Ohnesorg, the student movement questioned media control that promoted social and political oppression. The students detested the “Establishment” which included the partnership between the government and mass media (Hilwig, 1998, p.321). The media, particularly the monopoly of Springer media, supported the government’s policies and actions, while vilifying the student movement (Medeiros, 2012). Several scholars analysed how the student movement criticised the media. Mark Allinson (2013), Professor of University of Bristols Department of German, reports the student action against Axel Springer Verlag, publisher of the populist Bild-Zeitung and other right wing newspapers that condemned the left-wing actions of the student movement (p.142). Hilwig (1998) reports on the various student actions against Springer’s media monopoly because of his newspapers’ bias for the right-wing government. In 1967, student protesters conducted an “Expropriate Springer” campaign that determined Springer as the icon of conservatism and media monopoly (Hilwig, 1998, pp.326-327). In January 1968, students made an “Anti-fascist Springer Tribunal” that “convicted” Springer of renewing old German nationalism and authoritarianism (Hilwig, 1998, p.327). One month afterwards, students held a Vietnam Congress in West Berlin. They condemned the Vietnam War as an action of American imperialism and they compared American atrocities with Nazi war crimes (Hilwig, 1998, p.327). Riots erupted in April 1968 after the failed shooting of Rudi Dutschke, a leader of the SDS, on 11 April 1968. SDS blamed Axel Springer, owner of the tabloid Bild-Zeitung, for the murder, because they reasoned that Josef Bachman, a radical neo-Nazi, was an avid reader of the said tabloid (Hilwig, 1998, p.327). Bild-Zeitung demonised Dutschke as “Red Rudi” since early 1968, hinting that he is a communist and a “public enemy” of Germany (Medeiros, 2012). These demonstrations show that the students abhorred the media for representing and defending the government, instead of promoting truth and social justice. Apart from general political oppression and media’s role in it, students also experienced generational differences and questioned the existence of social oppression. Many students questioned the absence of discussion of the past with their parents and the easy transition of the older generation to middle-class lifestyle (Giesen, 1998, p.150). For instance, not many of their parents talked about Nazi Germany. The parents of the youth of the 1960s were generally silent on important historical issues. Dr. Bernhard Giesen, former Professor of the Department of History and Sociology, describes the code of national identity for the student protestors of the 1960s. These students rejected the way that their middle-class parents easily transitioned to middle-class life as if Nazi Germany did not happen (Giesen, 1998, p.150). Their rejection included cultural changes through showing freedom in sexuality and public demonstrations (Giesen, 1998, p.150). Jarausch, Seeba and Conradt (1997) show that, based on surveys, Germans wanted to define their national identity according to economic and democratic reforms (p.41). Kraushaar (2010) asserts that the students differed from their parents in various degrees, as they developed heterogeneous attitudes and aspirations. He notes that though the student movement in Germany supported democratic actions in other parts of the world, it retained its context in light of a Nazi past and the continuation of East-West conflicts (Kraushaar, 2010, p.80). Generational differences affected the nature and aspirations of the students. The student movement, probably due to its heterogeneity too, have not been successful in directly overturning the political order. Some scholars agreed that the student movement may not be seen as successful in itself in directly creating immediate political changes, but it did change Germany and even the world because it started Germany’s cultural revolution and supported global social and political changes. During May 1968, the SDS and unionised workers accepted the concessions from the government. Their submission decreased the coordination between the students and labour unions, which resulted to the steady decline of the student movement (Medeiros, 2012). Despite this loss on the part of the student movement, several scholars agree that 1968, as a metaphor for the student movement in the 1960s, affected Germany’s cultural revolution and supported global social and political changes. Giesen (1998) argues that 1968 resulted to subsequent political reforms and cultural changes. The student movement changed the social cultural balance to increase public participation (Giesen, 1998, p.151). The study of Kundnani (2011) noted the impact of the student movement on the collective memory of Germans. He believes that they shifted the thinking from Germans as perpetrators to Germans as victims. He describes how students saw Germany as the victim of capitalism and imperialism (Kundnani, 2011, p.274). In particular, Rudi Dutschke promoted the idea that Germans were victims too of Nazism (Kundnani, 2011, p.276). The impact of this thinking is a cultural reorientation toward a lasting connection between the oppressed in Germany and the oppressed in other parts of the world, since all of them suffer under repressive political and economic systems. Ralf Fücks, writer and political activist, argues that 1968 led to global social and political changes. He asserts that the student movement learned how to use media in advancing national and international aspirations for social justice and empowerment of the marginalised (Fücks, 2008, p.8). The paper connects these actions to international support for civil rights movement and democratic changes that are happening in the U.S. and other nations. The student movement changed how Germany protested against the government and supported democratic reforms through collective social analysis and public demonstrations. In 1968, Germany had its own student movement that matched student movements in America and Europe, all clamouring for the end of imperialism, its oppressive policies, practices, and wars. The student movement in Germany, however, also has unique national sentiments as it deals with the Nazi past and collective memory. The students forwarded a new collective memory of the Germans as victims of Nazism, authoritarianism, and capitalism. They also showed ideological and generational differences, where they preserved theoretical beliefs in socialism and departed with the right-wing politics of the government, while also questioning the political apathy of older adults, including their parents. In addition, the student movement may not have changed the political order, but it did result to cultural changes through promotion of democratic practices. They also contributed to long-term social changes through the continuing effects of student activism on the promotion of civil rights and democracies in other parts of the world. Hence, 1968 is the age of student activism and the development of wider consciousness for social analysis and transformation in Germany and the world. Reference List Allinson, M., 2013. Germany and Austria 1814-2000. Oxon: Routledge. Fücks, R., 2008. What is left? 1968 revisited. In: N. Farik, ed. 1968 revisited: 40 years of protest movements. Belgium: Heinrich Böll Foundation EU Regional Office Brussels. pp. 7-10. Fulbrook, M., 1991. A concise history of Germany. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giesen, B., 1998. Intellectuals and the nation: collective identity in a German Axial age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hilwig, S.J., 1998. The revolt against the establishment: students versus the press in West Germany and Italy. In: C. Fink, P. Gassert and D. Junker, eds. 1968: the world transformed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 321-350. Jarausch, K.H., Seeba, H.C. and Conradt, D.P., 1997. The presence of the past: culture, opinion, and identity in Germany. In: K.H. Jarausch, ed. After unity: reconfiguring German identities, volume 3. pp.25-60. Kraushaar, W., 2010. Hitler’s children? the German 1968 movement in the shadow of the Nazi past. In: I. Cornils and S. Waters, eds. Memories of 1968: international perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang AG. pp. 79-102. Kundnani, H., 2011. Perpetrators and victims: Germanys 1968 generation and collective memory. German Life & Letters, 64(2), pp.272-282. Medeiros, S., 2012. German students campaign for democracy, 1966-68. Global Nonviolent Action Database [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 May 2014]. Meschkat, K., 2008. Germany 1968 – SDS, Urban Guerillas and Visions of Räterepublik. In: N. Farik, ed. 1968 revisited: 40 years of protest movements. Belgium: Heinrich Böll Foundation EU Regional Office Brussels. pp. 39-43. Spiegel., 2009. 1968 Revisited: The Truth about the Gunshot that Changed Germany. May 28. [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 May 2014]. Templin, W., 2008. 1968 – An East German perspective. In: N. Farik, ed. 1968 revisited: 40 years of protest movements. Belgium: Heinrich Böll Foundation EU Regional Office Brussels. pp. 33-36. Von Dirke, S., 1997. “All power to the imagination!”: the West German counterculture from the student movement to the greens. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Read More