How did the West German student movement of 1968, primarily defined by a generational conflict over the Nazi past (“the revolt against the fathers”), fundamentally democratize and liberalize the sociocultural landscape of the Federal Republic, despite failing to achieve its revolutionary political goals?
This article examines the seismic cultural shifts of the late 1960s in West Germany, centering on the “68er” generation. It analyzes the movement’s dual origins: the global anti-Vietnam War protests and the specifically German confrontation with the “Auschwitz generation.” The article explores the formation of the Extra-Parliamentary Opposition (APO) in response to the Grand Coalition and the Emergency Acts, the radicalizing impact of the shooting of Benno Ohnesorg, and the leadership of Rudi Dutschke. It argues that while the movement failed to overthrow capitalism or the state, it succeeded in a “cultural revolutionCultural Revolution Mao Zedong’s decade-long campaign of radical political and social transformation launched in China in 1966, in which Red Guards attacked ‘capitalist roaders’ and ‘counter-revolutionaries’, destroying cultural heritage, paralysing the education system, and killing an estimated half million to two million people. The Cultural Revolution was Mao’s response to his political marginalisation following the catastrophic Great Leap Forward. In 1966, bypassing the party apparatus that had constrained him, Mao appealed directly to youth — mobilising millions of students as Red Guards to ‘bombard the headquarters’ of the party bureaucracy. Red Guards attacked teachers, intellectuals, party officials, and anyone associated with ‘old culture, old customs, old habits, old ideas.’ Universities were closed; professors were paraded through streets in dunce caps; historical monuments, temples, and artworks were destroyed. An entire generation lost its education. The party establishment — including future leader Deng Xiaoping — was purged, imprisoned, or sent to rural re-education camps. The violence was not centralised but diffuse, as competing Red Guard factions turned on each other in cities across the country. By 1968, the chaos had become ungovernable and Mao deployed the People’s Liberation Army to restore order, sending urban youth to the countryside in what was simultaneously a pacification measure and a punishment. The Cultural Revolution formally ended with Mao’s death in 1976 and the arrest of the Gang of Four; the Chinese Communist Party’s 1981 assessment held that it had been a catastrophic error for which Mao bore primary responsibility. The Cultural Revolution exposed the fundamental instability of Maoist politics: a system premised on continuous revolutionary struggle could not achieve the institutional consolidation needed to govern a modern state without either betraying its revolutionary principles or destroying the institutions that made governance possible. The revolution consumed itself. More broadly, it illustrates the particular danger of charismatic authoritarian rule combined with ideological purity demands: once the standard of ideological correctness is deployed as a political weapon, there is no institutional check on its escalation. Everyone becomes potentially guilty; denunciation becomes survival strategy; the most radical faction wins by outbidding all others. The children who spent their formative years as Red Guards — the generation that Mao called upon to smash the old world — were the same generation that had to rebuild China’s institutions in the decades that followed, carrying the trauma of what they had done and what had been done to them..” It dismantled the authoritarian structures of the Adenauer era, revolutionized parenting and education, liberalized sexuality, and enforced a critical public memory of the HolocaustHolocaust holocaust The systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. It was the culmination of a programme of escalating persecution, exclusion, and ultimately industrialised genocide without precedent in human history. The Holocaust — the Hebrew term is Shoah, meaning catastrophe — unfolded in stages. The Nazi seizure of power in 1933 brought immediately a regime committed to removing Jews from German public life: civil service dismissals, boycotts, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 which stripped Jews of citizenship, Kristallnacht in 1938 which destroyed synagogues and Jewish businesses across Germany and Austria. The war began in 1939; with the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, a qualitative shift occurred. The Einsatzgruppen — mobile killing squads — followed the German advance, shooting Jews and others in mass executions; at Babi Yar outside Kyiv, 33,771 Jews were shot in two days in September 1941. The Wannsee Conference of January 1942 coordinated the implementation of the Final Solution across the German bureaucracy; purpose-built extermination camps — Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek — processed and murdered hundreds of thousands of victims monthly. The killing extended across occupied Europe, from France to Greece, from the Netherlands to the occupied Soviet Union, coordinated by German agencies with varying degrees of local collaboration. By May 1945, approximately six million Jews had been murdered — two-thirds of European Jewry. The Romani people, Soviet prisoners of war, disabled people, homosexuals, and political prisoners were also killed in large numbers; the Jews were targeted for total extermination. The Holocaust has generated more historical scholarship than any other event in the twentieth century, and yet certain questions retain their analytical and moral difficulty. The debate about perpetrators — whether ordinary men became mass murderers through obedience to authority and peer pressure (Browning) or through a specifically German eliminationist antisemitism (Goldhagen) — remains unresolved, with most historians finding partial truth in both positions. The question of bystanders — ordinary Europeans who knew what was happening and did not intervene — raises uncomfortable questions about the relationship between knowledge and complicity. The question of uniqueness — whether the Holocaust was singular in character and should be considered distinct from other genocides, or whether it can be compared without minimising either event — has generated genuine scholarly and political controversy. None of these debates diminishes the Holocaust’s centrality to any serious engagement with the twentieth century; they reflect the difficulty of thinking adequately about events of this magnitude., thereby transforming the Federal Republic from a post-authoritarian state into a modern, liberal democracy.
Introduction
In the mid-1960s, West Germany was a country of stifling conformity. The “economic miracle” had provided washing machines and televisions, but the social atmosphere remained rigid, patriarchal, and hierarchical. Universities were run by “ordinariates” (powerful professors) who tolerated no dissent; sexual morality was strictly Catholic or Protestant; and the government was led by old men who had served in the Wehrmacht.
By 1969, this world had begun to crumble. Long hair, rock music, co-ed dormitories, and sit-ins had replaced the order of the Adenauer years. This transformation was driven by the “68ers”—a generation born during or just after the war, who grew up in the ruins and the boom, and who finally turned to their parents with the question: “What did you do?”
This article investigates the West German 1968 movement. It distinguishes the German experience from its counterparts in Paris or Berkeley by highlighting its unique obsession with the Nazi past. It traces the trajectory from peaceful protest to the radical fringe of the Red Army Faction, and concludes that the true legacy of 1968 was not the requested socialist revolution, but the unintended liberalization of civil society.
The Grand Coalition and the Void of Opposition
The political catalyst for the unrest was the formation of the “Grand Coalition” in 1966. The two major parties, the conservative CDU/CSU and the center-left SPD, joined forces to govern, leaving only the tiny FDP in opposition.
For the intellectual left, this was a disaster. It seemed to confirm that parliamentary democracy was a farce, a cartel of elites with no real debate. The SPD, historically the party of the working class and opposition, was seen as having sold out (following its shift to the center with the Godesberg Program in 1959).
In response, the Außerparlamentarische Opposition (Extra-Parliamentary Opposition or APO) was formed. If parliament would not provide opposition, the streets would. The APO was a loose coalition of students, intellectuals, and trade unionists, centered around the Socialist German Student League (SDS).
The Emergency Acts and the Ghost of Weimar
The specific legislative spark was the Notstandsgesetze (Emergency Acts). These laws were intended to give the government special powers in times of crisis (natural disaster, war, insurrection), replacing the rights retained by the Allied powers.
To the students, sensitive to history, this looked like a replay of the Enabling ActEnabling Act The law passed by the German Reichstag on 23 March 1933 that transferred legislative power from parliament to Hitler’s cabinet for four years, giving Hitler effectively unlimited legislative authority. It was the legal foundation of the Nazi dictatorship. The Enabling Act — formally the ‘Law for the Relief of the Distress of People and Reich’ — was passed just weeks after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor and four days after the burning of the Reichstag, which the Nazis used as justification for sweeping emergency powers. The Social Democrats were the only party to vote against it; the Catholic Centre Party, whose votes were decisive, supported it after receiving Hitler’s false assurances about respecting the church’s independence. Communist deputies had already been arrested; others abstained or were intimidated. The law passed 441 to 84. It gave Hitler’s cabinet the power to issue laws without Reichstag approval, and critically, to deviate from the Weimar Constitution. In practice, it meant that every subsequent Nazi measure — the Nuremberg Laws, the confiscation of Jewish property, the annexation of Austria — had the legal form of legislation, even if it had no democratic legitimacy. The act was renewed twice; in 1937 it was made permanent. The Enabling Act illustrates a disturbing possibility: that democracy can be legally abolished by a democratic vote, using democratic procedures and constitutional forms. The Enabling Act is the paradigmatic case of democratic self-destruction — the suicide of a republic by its own procedures. The Weimar Constitution contained provisions that made it possible; the Nazi Party exploited them. The lesson for democratic theorists is that constitutional democracies need not only procedural rules (majority voting) but substantive constraints that cannot be removed by any majority, however large. The post-war German constitution (Basic Law) of 1949 was explicitly designed to prevent a recurrence: it contains an ‘eternity clause’ (Article 79) making certain provisions — including human dignity and the federal structure — unamendable. The Enabling Act is also a reminder that emergency powers, once granted, are rarely returned: the ‘temporary’ grant of four years became permanent, and what was presented as a crisis measure became the constitutional foundation of total dictatorship. of 1933, which had allowed Hitler to seize power legally. The slogan “Bonn is not Weimar” was flipped; the students feared Bonn was becoming Weimar. The protests against these laws mobilized thousands who feared a return to authoritarianism.
The Revolt Against the Fathers: “Unter den Talaren – Muff von 1000 Jahren”
The unique engine of the German 1968 was the generational conflict. Unlike American students protesting the draft, German students were protesting their heritage.
The slogan “Under the gowns – the mustiness of 1000 years” (Unter den Talaren – Muff von 1000 Jahren), chanted at university rectors, captured the mood. The “1000 years” referred to the “Thousand Year Reich.” The students accused the university professors, the judges, and the politicians of being former Nazis who had effortlessly transitioned into democrats.
They were largely right. The Adenauer era had reintegrated ex-Nazis to build the state. The 68ers tore open this silence. They viewed the authoritarianism of their fathers—in the family, the school, and the state—as the precursor to fascism. To fight their fathers was to fight fascism. This psychological dimension gave the German movement a ferocious, almost Oedipal intensity.
June 2, 1967: The Shooting of Benno Ohnesorg
The movement lost its innocence on June 2, 1967. During a protest against the visit of the Shah of Iran in West Berlin, the police attacked the demonstrators with batons. In the chaos, a police officer named Karl-Heinz Kurras shot a 26-year-old pacifist student, Benno Ohnesorg, in the back of the head, killing him.
The state and the conservative press (specifically the Springer press) blamed the students, calling them violent rioters. However, the truth—that an unarmed student was executed by a policeman—radicalized the movement overnight. (It was later revealed, decades later, that Kurras was essentially a spy for the East German Stasi, adding a bizarre Cold WarCold War The geopolitical and ideological confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union that dominated global politics from 1947 to 1991. It was fought not through direct military conflict between the superpowers but through proxy wars, arms races, espionage, and ideological competition across the developing world. The Cold War began before the Second World War had fully ended: American and Soviet disagreements over the post-war order in Europe were visible at Yalta in February 1945 and had hardened into open confrontation by 1947, when the Truman Doctrine committed the United States to resisting Soviet expansion and the Marshall Plan began binding Western Europe to American economic leadership. The term itself was popularised by journalist Walter Lippmann in 1947, capturing the essential quality of a conflict that neither side could allow to become hot — because both possessed nuclear weapons capable of annihilating the other’s cities. The resulting stalemate was managed through deterrence, alliance systems (NATO in the West, the Warsaw Pact in the East), and the deliberate avoidance of direct superpower confrontation even while both sides fought intense proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, and dozens of other theatres. The Cold War was simultaneously a strategic competition and an ideological one: each side claimed to represent the future of humanity, and each used development aid, propaganda, cultural diplomacy, and covert action to advance its model in the non-aligned world. It ended not with a military defeat but with the internal collapse of the Soviet system between 1989 and 1991. The Cold War’s most important characteristic was its globality: what began as a European dispute about occupation zones became a worldwide competition that shaped the politics of every continent. For the United States, it justified interventions that overthrew democratic governments (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973) on the grounds that any leftist government was a Soviet beachhead; for the Soviet Union, it justified the crushing of reform movements within its own bloc (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968) on the grounds that any deviation threatened the socialist camp. The Cold War’s legacy is therefore not only the fall of the Berlin Wall but the long list of democracies destroyed, developmental alternatives foreclosed, and civil wars fuelled in the name of containing the other side. The Third World paid the price for a confrontation between two powers that never actually fought each other. twist, though his motivation for the shooting remains debated).
For many students, Ohnesorg’s death proved that the West German state was indeed a “fascist police state” behind a democratic facade. This event led to the rise of militant groups and the justification of violence as “counter-violence.”
Rudi Dutschke and the Long MarchLong March long-march The Chinese Communist Party’s 6,000-mile strategic retreat of 1934–35, in which approximately 100,000 soldiers fled Chiang Kai-shek’s encirclement campaigns and crossed mountains and rivers to reach Yan’an in the northwest. The survival of the party and the emergence of Mao’s leadership made it the founding myth of the People’s Republic. The Long March began in October 1934 when the main Communist forces, nearly encircled by Chiang Kai-shek’s fifth encirclement campaign in Jiangxi province, broke through the Nationalist lines and began moving west and north. The march covered approximately 12,500 kilometres over twelve months across some of China’s most inhospitable terrain — the Luding Bridge chain crossing, the snow-covered peaks of the Great Snowy Mountains, the treacherous Grasslands of Sichuan. Of approximately 100,000 who began, around 8,000 reached Yan’an. The brutal attrition of the march had political consequences: it removed many of the Soviet-trained Comintern-oriented leaders and provided the crisis conditions in which Mao consolidated his authority, at the Zunyi Conference of January 1935, over the party’s military direction. The Long March established the CCP’s base in Yan’an, where it spent the decade before the civil war’s final phase building a distinctive political culture — mass mobilisation, land reform, guerrilla warfare — that would defeat the Nationalists in 1949. The march was retrospectively mythologised as a heroic journey that demonstrated the CCP’s indestructibility; Mao’s poem celebrating it — ‘The Red Army fears not the trials of the Long March’ — became one of the most famous texts in Chinese communist culture. The Long March is one of history’s most compelling examples of how military defeat, when survived, can be transformed into political capital. The CCP emerged from the march smaller but ideologically purified — in the sense that those who remained had demonstrated a level of commitment that the march itself had selected for — and with a leadership group forged by shared experience of extreme hardship. This transformation of near-annihilation into foundation myth is not unique to China: revolutionary movements from the Cuban guerrillas’ Sierra Maestra campaign to the Algerian FLN’s mountain retreats have used the experience of sustained adversity as a source of legitimacy. The myth also had a distorting effect: the Long March’s emphasis on self-reliance and mass mobilisation became ideological commitments that made the CCP resistant to both Soviet advice (useful when the advice was good) and modernisation strategies that didn’t fit the march’s heroic template.
The charismatic face of the movement was Rudi Dutschke. A brilliant sociology student from East Germany, Dutschke preached a “long march through the institutions.” He argued that throwing stones was insufficient; revolutionaries had to enter the schools, the media, the courts, and the bureaucracy to transform the system from within.
Dutschke was a target of hate for the right-wing press. Bild newspaper ran headlines like “Stop Dutschke now!” In April 1968, a young right-wing extremist, Josef Bachmann, shot Dutschke in the head on the streets of Berlin. Dutschke survived (though he died years later from complications), but the assassination attempt triggered the “Easter Riots,” the most violent unrest in the history of the Federal Republic, targeting the distribution centers of the Springer press.
Terrorism vs. Reform: The Splintering of the Movement
By 1969, the movement began to splinter. The “Emergency Acts” passed despite the protests. The revolution did not happen.
One faction, frustrated by the failure of peaceful protest, went underground. Figures like Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof (formerly a celebrated journalist) formed the Red Army Faction (RAF). They engaged in arson, bank robberies, and assassinations, terrorizing the state throughout the 1970s.
However, the vast majority of the 68ers took Dutschke’s advice. They joined the SPD or the trade unions. They became teachers, journalists, and judges. They fueled the victory of Willy Brandt in 1969, the first SPD Chancellor, whose slogan “Dare more democracy” (Mehr Demokratie wagen) channeled the spirit of the times into policy.
The Cultural Revolution: A Different Republic
The legacy of 1968 lies in the “fundamentally liberalized” Federal Republic.
- Education: Corporal punishment was banned; universities were democratized; authoritarian teaching styles were replaced by critical pedagogy.
- Gender and Sexuality: The movement coincided with the sexual revolution. Commune 1 (Kommune I) in Berlin challenged the nuclear family. Abortion rights became a central issue.
- Memory: The 68ers forced the Holocaust into the center of German identity. They ended the “communicative silence” and established the culture of critical remembrance (Erinnerungskultur).
Conclusion
The 68ers failed to destroy capitalism. They failed to prevent the Emergency Acts. But they succeeded in destroying the “authoritarian personality” of the post-war German. They transformed West Germany from a society of subjects (Untertanen) into a society of citizens. The “Federal Republic” that existed in 1989 was socially, culturally, and psychologically a different country from the one in 1966, largely due to the intervention of this generation.
Leave a Reply