German Rearmament Now Opposed on Many Counts

While reliable reports placed Russian armed strength in Europe at 120 divisions last week, the "free nations" remained sharply divided on plans for their defense. Stumbling block in the recent foreign minister's conference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel was the role that Western Germany should play in the unification and defense of the Atlantic Community.

Interviewed for their ideas on this problem, several members of the faculty, all experts in their fields, took a position somewhat at odds with the American point of view and generally closer to the French stand put forward by Foreign Minister Robert Schuman at the New Work talks.

While Secretary of State Dean Acheson called for the immediate creation of West German divisions to be integrated in an overall Western force, Schuman argued that German remilitarization should only take place following the economic integration of the German economy into that of Europe. This process is now only in its formative stage.

Schuman found sympathizers on the faculty. Carl J. Friedrich, professor of Government and former political advisor to General Lucius Clay in Germany, said that immediate rearmament of Germany would be a "major blunder." There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that rearmament now would promote "the most unreliable elements in Germany," while weakening those political elements we (the U.S.) depend on most heavily, Friedrich maintained.

Torning present discusson of German rearmament "premature," McGeorge Bundy, lecturer in Government, summed up his views on the subject as follows:

"There is a great deal of rearming to be done in Western Europe and in the United States, and Germany is not the most appropriate place to begin. Until we have a stronger force in Europe, until there is appreciably greater progress in the integration of Western European defenses and implementation of the Schuman plan, we can do better to rearm elsewhere than in Germany."

William L. Langer '15, Coolidge Professor of History and former assistant for intelligence to the Secretary of State, takes a more compromising view. He feels that rearmament should go along with development of the Schuman Plan proposals.

A program of this sort would be a "reasonably safe gamble," Langer said, noting that there is always a chance that such a "calculated risk" might backfire as did our support of the Nationalists in China.

Corps "Made" Hitier

Because of the complicated technological skills involved in developing any modern fighting force, the West would have no choice but to enlist the aid of the Prussian officer corps in the reestablishment of any kind of German force, Friedrich said. It is this elite group, however, more than any other, which was responsible for Hitler. The political effect of putting power into the hands of these men again would far outweigh any purely military advantages of German remilitarization, Friedrich continued.

In Germany, the outcome of such a move would be to undo our post-war policy of impressing on the German population that is was "militarism more than anything else that was the crux of the recent German misfortune," Friedrich argued. In this regard, he added, it is significant that the results of a recent poll showed that the people of western Germany were against the formation of a German army.

Were the authoritarian officer corps to regain ascendency in Germany, Friedrich continued, this group would be put in a unique position of being able to play the East and West off against one another.

Reappearance of German soldiers would have a devastating psychological effect in Europe, especially in France. This is a fact which Russian propagandists would not ignore, Friedrich said. To discuss such an explosive topic as German rearmament now is needlessly risky anyway, because it will be some time before our industrial plant can fill even our own demand for arms, he pointed out.

Another compelling argument against German rearmament is that the present constitution of the West German Republic has a section specifically outlawing any form of compulsory military training, Friedrich said. He added that the process of constitutional amendment is slow in Germany and the German people would not now change this part of the Constitution. Nor is there any prospect for raising a sizeable force of volunteers, he claimed.

Formation of a politically and economically unified Europe is the only hope of the West, Friedrich believes. It is only after this is accomplished that it will be advisable to incorporate German manpower into the ranks of a Western defense force. Without Western Germany, Europe is not secure, he said, but German manpower and skills can best be used in fields other than military.

As a partial solution to immediate European defense needs, Friedrich joined Bundy in calling for stronger, increased British and United States forces in Germany.

German Economy Booming

Vast expansion of defense outlays here and in Europe is already having and will continue to have a favorable effect upon the Germany economy. Even though the Ruhr will not make new guns, it will provide the steel for new guns and consumer for engineering products and consumer goods from the Ruhr will remain high. So reported John K. Galbraith, lecturer in Economics, who spent time in Germany this summer.

Even before Kores, Germany had been experiencing a boom and had enjoyed a favorable balance of trade, with deficits being made up by the Economic Co-operation Administration, Galbraith said. Production figures are at, or, in the case of some items, above those of 1936.

Meanwhile, with the gradual relaxing of allied economic controls, Germany has concluded large scale trade agreements with many areas, including a $60,000,000 deal signed with Mexico just two days ago.

Unemployment which stood at a danger ous high of 9.3 percent of the labor force in June, 1949 in being cut down at the rate of 110,000 persons per month.

On the debit side, Galbraith maintains that there is an "unsatisfactory distribution of the return from German recovery." The laborer is not benefiting enough from the boom and the middle Class, the savings of which were wiped out at the time of the 1948 currency reform, is also underpaid. Relatively speaking, the farmers and employers who had their wealth in the form of property in 1948 and whose goods are much in demand now are the best off in Germany.

The danger of this situation does not lie in a conversion of the German worker and middle class to Communism, Galbraith said. Rather, discontent taking the form of a "don't care attitude," and an impatience with government and democratic processes results.

This is the fifth in a series of stories attempting to orient the University of the present international situation. The first four covered left-wing clubs, faculty views on the Far East, the new anti-Communist law, and the views of six professors on the Korean war.