The impression which emerges from the enclosed account is that Ulbricht
is a forceful leader, hostile to the United States and its occupation
forces, and prone to demagogic and inaccurate assertions rather than
objective discussion. This attitude, so far as can be ascertained,
appears to be typical of the higher leadership of the Communist Party of
Germany.
The Communist leaders appear to pursue a definite policy of avoiding
contacts with the American authorities. It is very difficult to arrange
interviews with them and they have studiously rejected or avoided all
social invitations, both by members of my own staff and other American
officials. These remarks apply both to Ulbricht and to Wilhelm Pieck,
the nominal head of the Party. On the other hand, there are a few
Communist leaders such as Dr. Leo Skrzypczinsky, head of the Department
of Industry in the Soviet Zone of occupation, who circulate rather
freely at Allied social functions. It would appear that these men are
put forward because of their pleasing personalities as a kind of
propaganda measure.
[Enclosure]
Memorandum of Conversation—November 13,
1945
| Participants: |
Walter Ulbricht, member of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany. |
|
Louis A. Wiesner, Office of Political
Affairs, OMGUS. |
Walter Ulbricht is the real chief of the KPD today. A dynamic and
very energetic and forceful man, he refuses to be interviewed in the
ordinary manner and insists on talking, in German with a pronounced
Russian accent, about the points he wants to put across. Throughout
this interview, conducted in his own well-appointed though not
luxurious office, he exuded a self-confident awareness of his
present power and made no attempt to conceal his hostility toward
[Page 1076]
the United States
and, especially Great Britain. Though Ulbricht showed himself very
well informed and boasted of his knowledge, he mixed fact with fancy
in an unabashed fashion and seemed to take no notice of my
corrections.
The interview developed out of my telephoned request that Ulbricht
furnish me a copy of the Thuringian Works Councils Law of October
10, 1945. When I called at his office to get the text, he had only
the proposed law put forward by the Erfurt works councils convention
of September 17, but assured me that the Thuringian law would not
differ appreciably from this proposal.
Ulbricht stated that the new works council policy meant only a
reversion to the Weimar Republic status and that works councils
would have no power to make collective contracts on wages and hours.
Works councils are necessary to represent all the employees in a
plant, since not all workers will belong to a trade union. Without
the initiative of the works councils many enterprises would never
have resumed production.
Works councils, continued Ulbricht, have been demanded everywhere in
Germany and have been elected wherever the occupation authorities
would allow them. This remark led Ulbricht to a torrential
denunciation of the “undemocratic” policies of the British and
Americans in Germany. The Western Powers, he said, are not allowing
trade unions to be formed, except in a few isolated instances. I
contradicted this statement, saying that unions are being permitted
and are being formed throughout the U.S. Zone. Neither are the
British and Americans allowing political parties, except in Bavaria,
he continued. When I corrected this also, he said that local
political groupings are not parties; they are no better than
“singing societies”. Of course, Ulbricht added with a smile, the
parties, especially the KPD, are organized illegally on a broader
basis. The British and Americans do not allow public meetings (again
I corrected him) or party newspapers, and yet they expect the
Germans to vote in elections within a short time. How can a people
vote intelligently when there are no means to present the important
issues publicly? Only in the Soviet Zone is there any real freedom
or democracy. Then there is the matter of eliminating fascism and
militarism. In this too the British and Americans are not sincere.
Wehrmacht officers go around Hamburg wearing the Knight’s Cross.
Nazi war criminal industrialists and landowners are still running
their factories and ‘estates in the West, while they have been
eliminated and the economic basis of imperialism destroyed in the
East. As examples he cited the directors of Siemens and AEG92 in the British Zone and the general manager
of Telefunken in the American Zone, who, he said, remain in their
positions. Moreover, we have not cleaned the Nazis out
[Page 1077]
of public
administration, while in Berlin’s city government there are no more
Nazis. The British and Americans only talk about democracy but do
not practice it. They pursue a “Kolonialpolitik” and ignore the
decisions of the Berlin Conference. Of course, they can do this
because Germany is defeated, but it is not democracy.
I pointed out that the Americans are at least as thorough as the
“Russians in their denazification and that no Nazi would long remain
in a position of power in our Zone. Right now, I added, quite a
number of Nazis are employed in the Berlin city administration. With
regard to parties, our policy is to start them on a local basis and
let them expand only after they become firmly established. After
seeing twelve years of Nazism, we are not as confident of the
democratic instincts of the German people as Ulbricht seems to be,
and perhaps we also have a different conception of democracy. From
talking with people in Berlin, I do not have the impression that
reading the newspaper has as yet instilled into them democratic
ideas.
Asked about his opinion of the current controversy over the Berlin
trade union convention, Ulbricht said that he had nothing to do with
it. Warming to the subject, he added the following remarks: Here
again the British especially have shown that they are not
democratic. Over the radio and in their newspapers the British have
announced that they want new delegates’ elections because the
previous ones resulted in an unfavorable party balance. It is good
that the British have been so frank that everybody knows where they
stand. Though in some cases the elections may not have been
conducted properly, the anti-fascist workers understand democracy
and know the people they elected. The previous elections were not
held in violation of an MG law, and there is no reason to hold new
ones. As Major Kramer had suggested to me, I then told him that the
Americans had investigated the elections in their Sector, found that
some had been undemocratically conducted, and decided that, at least
in the U.S. Sector, new elections must be held. As the unions have
recruited many new members since September, these elections on the
basis of one delegate per hundred members would mean more delegates
from the U.S. Sector than before. Ulbricht denied this, stating that
only the FDGB Provisional Executive could increase the number of
delegates. A certain colonel had told the FDGB Executive that the
Kommandatura had decided to send Allied officers to supervise all
elections. Under no circumstances would the FDGB hold such
supervised elections. I replied that the colonel was in error but
that, unless new elections were held, at least in the American
Sector, the convention would not be allowed. Ulbricht rejoined that
it would occur anyhow.
Thanking Ulbricht for giving me so much of his time, I then
withdrew.
