Update: This post (from October 16) was a “sticky” feature at the top for a couple of days. Scroll down for more recent items, including a couple of news feeds.
When Brecht penned his well-known lines in 1953* they were bitter irony, but today they are becoming a bitter reality: the German authorities are in the process of dissolving the people and electing another.
Many thanks to Rembrandt Clancy for translating and annotating this two-part piece from Politically Incorrect. Both parts are included here.
“By now even the most reluctant are beginning to open their eyes. An organized plan exists to destabilize Europe through migratory invasion.”
Roberto de Mattei.
“From a migratory invasion to civil war”,
Corrispondenza Romana: October 5, 2016
by Rembrandt Clancy
C. Jahn of Politically Incorrect has made the state-sponsored extirpation of German ethnic and cultural identity in favour of imported ethnicities the subject of his two-part essay, “‘Umvolkung’: Exactly the Right Expression”. The occasion was a tweet by Christian Democratic (CDU) Member of Parliament, Bettina Kudla, in which she reproached her own party leader, Angela Merkel, and the party’s General Secretary, Peter Tauber, for deliberately covering up their policy of Umvolkung, a term which carries the echo, in reverse, of the National Socialist plans for absorption of certain population groups in Eastern Europe. The tweet puts her leaders on notice that she will not support this policy:
BK #Merkel denies it, #Tauber dreams. The #trans-ethnicisation [Umvolkung] of #Germany has long since begun. There is a need for action! [Politically Incorrect. 24 September, 2016]
In the days that followed the tweet, and subsequent to the publication of this essay, the windows of Bettina Kudla’s constituency office were broken and the building façade was smeared with a tar-like substance. Politically Incorrect (4 October 2016) reports that a well known “leftist terror-platform, ‘linksunten.indymeidia’” (indymedia), published a claim of responsibility for the incident:
Yesterday evening [Monday, 3 October 2016] we attacked the office of Bettina Kudla with dye and stones.
With her statements about the alleged “Umvolkung” of Germany Bettina Kudla has placed herself rhetorically alongside her comrades who encourage the racist bands of thugs and arsonists in their crimes and support them with arguments. With her reference to the myth of a population exchange in Germany, she provides legitimation to the murderous thirst for action of the fascists on the street. As a consequence she has become a target for us. Kudla wanted to get involved with the desk criminal Beatrix von Storch, who offered her a switch to the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland]. Meanwhile we have already bid her welcome.
Central to C. Jahn’s essay is the concept of “Umvolkung“. The term refers to the policy of complete structural transformation of an historically and organically matured ‘ethnic people’, a Volk, into another Volk who are the carriers of incompatible values. For the purposes of this essay, a Volk is not a population, a nation, an underclass or a mass; it is ‘a people’ in the sense of “a large community of individuals bound together through a common culture and history (and language)” (Duden). Also, especially given its place in German ethnicity and history, the word “Volk” and its compounds have a much different semantic weighting than its English cognate “folk”.
The prefix “um” (around) is what gives “Umvolkung“ its radical inversion in semantic polarity, the inversion of one Volk into another Volk, therefore also an inversion of values. A Volk is first and foremost the carrier of values and not blood. Now Friedrich Nietzsche’s expression, Umwertung aller Werte, the “transvaluation of all values”, represents his intuition that Western values were about to change into their opposites; for example, sanctity of life transforms into the ‘right’ to die and ‘freedom of choice’ into a euphemism for the right to kill; or in more general terms, the Graeco-Christian Logos of the West changes around (um), or more precisely, returns back to collectivism (Islam and neo-Bolshevism) — a revolutionary, albeit regressive anti-Logos. By virtue of the intimate connection between Volk and Werte, the transvaluation (Umwertung) of all values leads ultimately to a trans-ethnicisation (Umvolkung) of the people themselves.
We follow the established practice of rendering Nietzsche’s “Umwertung“ as “transvaluation” and translate ‘Umvolkung” as ‘trans-ethnicisation’.
“Umvolkung” — Exactly the Right Expression!
The political establishment is giving the CDU parliamentary representative Bettina Kudla a grilling: Kudla used the word “Umvolkung“ [trans-ethnicisation] to describe the Merkel settlement policy. This word is said to have already been used in the Third Reich. Even if this claim should be true (the proof is still pending), the regime has always stated quite openly that the settlement policy is a politically desired erection of new ethnic structures in Germany (“enrichment”, “as opposed to inbreeding”). How is one to describe this policy of a deliberate ethnic reconstruction [ethnischen Umbau]? A series for Politically Incorrect in two parts.
by C. Jahn
Original German Source: Politically Incorrect
Translated by: Rembrandt Clancy
29 September, 2016
In these times of our Multicoloured Republic [Bunten Republik], the regime has always justified its ethnic settlement policy with the advice that more Turks, more Arabs and more Nigerians constitute more “enrichment” for Germany (“these people with their joy of life…”) [Maria Böhmer, CDU, Minister of State in the Foreign Office]. The regime has always communicated very clearly in word and deed that the policy of a total ethnic restructuring (Umstrukturierung) is intended; Germany is going to be ethnically and culturally transformed. While it is true that this process of total ethnic restructuring has attained a new, much more radical dimension under Merkel, it is, nevertheless, on the whole part of a longstanding political continuity.
What term, therefore, lends itself most suitably to this deliberately precipitated, total ethnic restructuring?
First and foremost, this is clearly a classical settlement policy. New ethnic groups are settled in the traditional settlement area of another ethnic group in order to accomplish specific political objectives. These objectives could be anything, depending on the political leaning. The settlement policy of Stalinism aimed at the destruction of established, organised ethnic structures within the framework of the fight against all forms of opposition. The planned (but never implemented) settlement policy of the Third Reich aimed at a gradual — at first almost unnoticed — but steadily increasing dissolution of East European ethnic groups [Völker] into the Germanic stock. Even outside of Western Europe today, the implementation of policy objectives drives ethnic settlement policies in many other parts of the world — any search engine is suited to offer additional assistance. Also the policy of our Multicoloured Republicans in Berlin aims to achieve its political objectives through the settlement of new ethnic groups. Assuming they have good intentions, Germany is to be “enriched” through “joy of life”, and Germans are to “learn” to understand other cultures and thereby “break down prejudices”, hence a kind of educational programme. Assuming they have bad intentions, they first wish to marginalise Germans to the status of an ethnic minority, then deprive them of all special protections which they enjoy in their own country and ultimately exterminate them through pogroms, civil war or other orgies of the violent type. Since one cannot read the minds of the Multicoloured Republicans, let us not speculate further here about their ultimate political objectives. But this changes nothing about the fact that the means of implementing these objectives — whatever that might be — is very much a classical settlement policy which is carried out pro forma through deliberate abuse of asylum law.
What distinguishes this settlement policy of the Multicoloured Republicans of today from the settlement policy of the Third Reich?
The main criticism the regime has against Representative Kudla follows a twofold thrust. On the one hand, they fault Kudla for using a term which they claim had been standard in the propaganda language of the Third Reich. But even if this word had already been in use in some of the addresses or speeches of the Third Reich, in comparison with several other terms out of the same period, the word “Umvolkung” certainly falls within the realm of general knowledge. Even if some National Socialist ideologues are supposed to have used this word, it fell completely into oblivion after 1945. It has surfaced since then for the first time in several PI articles starting in 2015, subsequent to Merkel’s refugee putsch; and Akif Pirinçci took it up in 2016 as the title of a book. One requires little imagination to come up with an expression like “Umvolkung” [trans-ethnicisation] when faced with the Merkel-madness. It is therefore quite accurate from the standpoint of language history to distinguish between the mostly forgotten National Socialist ideological language describing the settlement policy for Eastern Europe (insofar as the claim is true and few historians trust it) and its recreation in 2015. There is no historical-linguistic continuity between the two concepts.
On the other hand, the regime reproaches Kudla for wrongly applying the word “Umvolkung” specifically to the Merkel settlement policy. The criticism runs as follows:
‘In contrast to Merkel, the settlement policy of the Third Reich entailed a “Germanisation of pro-German population groups in the conquered territories of Eastern Europe”. According to this definition of the term, there is no justification for applying the word “Umvolkung” in the same way to the settlement policy of the Multicoloured Republicans: the Merkel policy does not entail Germanisation, for Germany is not a conquered country.’
Insofar as one is willing to deal with this putative prior use of the term in the National Socialist period, the comparison is indeed, as noted above, absurd from the standpoint of linguistic history, but is, as regards content, thoroughly legitimate. For the Multicoloured Republic of the present, even by its own self-understanding, would like above all to be an anti-Hitler state. It is therefore only consistent that the state direct its aggression in these times of the Multicoloured Republic not against foreign ethnic peoples [Völker] as in the Third Reich, but in precisely the opposite direction, against its own ethnicity [Volk] — the key word here is “anti-Hitler”. To understand the Multicoloured Republicans’ policy of trans-ethnicisation [Umvolkungspolitik], the above definition from the National Socialist period must therefore be translated, considering only its content, into its opposite: ethnically, the policy has nothing to do with Germanisation, but is a matter of an ethnic “Levantinisation” [Orientalisierung] of the Germans. Conversely, the policy has nothing to do with “pro-German population groups”, but consistent with the logic of the anti-Hitler state, it centres on the Germans themselves.
The regime has often enough made it abundantly clear that their political intention is the Levantinisation of the Germans; that is, the gradual cultural and ethnic integration of the native population into the newly settled population: the slogan “Integration is not a one-way street!” requires quite directly the assimilation of the Germans to the habits and customs of the settlers. Also, Multicoloured Republicans welcome, in the tradition of the National Socialist state, biological elimination through selective breeding. One is reminded of [Finance Minister Wolfgang] Schäuble’s infamous inbreeding quotation! An immediate comparison between the practised Umvolkung of the Multicoloured Republicans and the envisioned “Umvolkung” in the Third Reich is also thoroughly justified on the grounds of content. And it goes without saying — to take up the third point of the definition — Germany (like all of Western Europe) is a conquered territory from the standpoint of the settlers from the Middle East — this has even been communicated in a completely explicit way by the relevant persons (“that is now our street/ our part of the city/ our city/ our country”).
To summarise, the settlement policy of the Multicoloured Republicans forms part of a politically desired, state-sponsored process of total ethnic restructuring [Umbauprocess]. Quite clearly it shows parallels to the planned, but no longer implemented settlement policy of the National Socialist period, except that it is guided in accordance with the Multicoloured Republic’s self-conception as an “anti-Hitler state”. The policy is not directed against foreign peoples, but against the Germans. Even in the absence of an historical-linguistic continuity between the term as it was understood in the National Socialist period and its re-creation in 2015, it is justified to apply the term “Umvolkung” to the politically motivated ethnic policy which is driven with the help of a systematic settlement policy. It is exactly the right word!
Next: “Umvolkung” — How otherwise?
1. There is evidence for the use of Umvolkung among National Socialist academics of the period. Of course the circulation of academic neologisms among university professors does not prove widespread usage for propaganda purposes, much less general knowledge of the concept behind the term. Alexander Pinwinkler is an Austrian Historian who identifies a certain SS-Hauptsturmführer Hans Joachim Beyer as a key figure in the propagation of the term the Umvolkung, and its meaning, as early as 1937 (cf. reference below). Pinwinkler identifies Beyer as an historian and professor in Danzig, Berlin and Prague in the 1930s, who headed an association called the Arbeitsstelle für auslandsdeutsche Volksforschung (Department for Ethnic Research into Germans Living Abroad). The first conference of this organisation, which was held in 1937, had as its theme “the “Extent and Nature of the Processes of Umvolkung in the German Sphere of Influence”. Pinwinkler further suggests the term Umvolkung and its usage may even date back to the late 19th century as can be seen in the following quotation from one of his works, which also provides a definition of Umvolkung as a “transition” or a “crossing over” (Übergang) — the emphasis has been added:
In the interdisciplinary studies on “Umvolkung”, Beyer, in spite of his prominent role, was nevertheless only one of several voices, and also he was not the first historian to investigate this theme. The historiographical preoccupation with the process of “transition” [Übergang] from one “ethnicity” [Volkstum] to another dates back somewhat further as I already mentioned [Schulze 1896]. Whether it is described generally as “Umvolkung” or in reference to such “concrete” social, political or cultural processes as “Germanisation”, “de-Germanisation” or even “Polonisation”, what these terms held in common was that they were nationalistically charged and were usable against socio-ethnic groups who were declared to be hostile. [Pinwinkler, Alexander. “Assimilation” und “Dissimilation” in der Bevölkerungsgeschichte, circa 1918-1960” in Rainer Mackensen (ed.), Bevölkerungsforschung und Politik in Deutschland im 20. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. 2006, p. 35]
The reference in square brackets to “Schulze 1896” represents Pinwinkler’s bibliographical reference to a work of that date by Eduard Otto Schulze, Die Kolonisierung und Germanisierung der Gebiete zwischen Saale und Elbe (The Colonisation and Germanisation of the regions between the Saale and the Elbe).
Another (English-language) historian, Winson Chu, writes that Hans Joachim Beyer, as editor of a journal on Eastern research [Zeitschrift Volksdeutsche Volksforschung Wiki ], also oversaw two essays on Umvolkung, which incidentally he translates as “re-volking”. These essays dealt with the ethnic dynamics of Poland: One paper was “On the question of the Umvolkung of Protestant Germans in Congress Poland” (1937) by Hans Koch; and the other was “On the Question of the Assimilation of the German Central Poles (in Consideration of their Social Structure” (1938) by Hans Hopf. (Winson Chu, “Volksgemeinschaften unter sich“: German Minorities and Regionalism in Poland, 1918-1939,” in German History from the Margins, eds. Neil Gregor, Nils Roemer, and Mark Roseman, p. 125, note 62)
2. “It has surfaced since then for the first time in several PI articles starting in 2015, subsequent to Merkel’s refugee putsch; and Akif Pirinçci took it up in 2016 as the title of a book.”
Akif Pirinçci is a Turkish-born German writer who essays have been translated at least twice for Gates of Vienna. His most recent book is called Umvolkung. Wie Deutschen still und leise ausgetauscht werden (Umvolkung: How the Germans are Secretly being Replaced). The 160-page book is already in its second edition, published in 2016 by Antaios Verlag in Schnellroda.
Akif Pirinçci himself understands “Umvolkung” to have originated in the National Socialist period. For him, the term is not to be confused with immigration or emigration per se. He says that Umvolkung is a replacement of masses of people in a given territory with the purpose of eliminating its native population. And, according to Pirinçci, this is what is happening in Germany, without the people’s having been consulted. As one expression of the policy, new arrivals are given special favours while native Germans who object to the policy are invited to leave Germany. (Source: Akif Pirinçci in conversation with Michael Friedrich Vogt in a video entitled “Akif Pirinçci: Die Umvolkung — von dem Austausch der Deutschen & den Invasionsgewinnlern”: 19:43 min. ff)
Pirinçci may well have been the one who reactivated the term Umvolkung and gave it its new emphasis after 1945, specifically on 2 October 2015 (cf. “Akif Pirinçci: ‘Umvolkung’”). The other PI articles which C. Jahn identifies as containing the word Umvolkung refer, for the most part specifically, to Akif Pirinçci’s book “Umvolkung…”, including the one article in 2015 which is by Pirinçci himself anticipating the publication of his new book (cf. Akif Pirinçci: UMVOLKUNG). The exceptions are three PI articles in October of 2016 which, although these refer specifically to Umvolkung in the German context used by Pirinçci, they do not define the term and use it without reference to Pirinçci himself.
3. In June 2016 Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble argued in favour of in-migration as reported in Handelsblatt (08 June 2016):
“Isolation is exactly what would destroy us, what would cause us to degenerate into inbreeding”, he told the weekly magazine Die Zeit (Thursday). In Germany, Muslims contribute to openness and diversity: “Take a look at the third generation of Turks, particularly the women. That is an enormous innovative potential.” [Emphasis added.]
Akif Pirinçci wrote a response to Schäuble’s remarks on his blog in June of this year and it was translated under the title of Crossbreeding With Morons for Gates of Vienna.
“Umvolkung“ — How otherwise?
[cf. Part 1 above, “Umvolkung”: Exactly the Right Expression!]
Note: For background to the term Umvolkung, consult the Introduction to Part I of this essay.
The reason the word Umvolkung [trans-ethnicisation] has been able to spread so rapidly since last Fall is that it very aptly characterises today’s Umvolkung policy. For it is clear in this case that that the term is warranted, given that the policy aims ultimately at total ethnic restructuring [Umstrukturierung]: the regime has always stated this openly and has never disputed it. How otherwise than with the word “Umvolkung” is one to name the thing according to its conception? Would the term “re-populating the population” [Umbevölkerungung] be more politically correct?
by C. Jahn
Original German Source: Politically Incorrect
Translation: Rembrandt Clancy
30 September, 2016
Presently several German language terms compete with each other to characterise with a single encapsulating word the policy of total ethnic restructuring.
The regime itself readily uses the expression “demographic change” or “demographic shift” (“our country is undergoing change”). This idea is misleading — not by accident of course — for two reasons. On the one hand, the ‘total ethnic restructuring (Umstrukturierung) of Germany is not a “demographic” process, which is to say it is not a question of exchanging age for youth, or men for women; it is a matter of making other ethnicities indigenous: it is a question, therefore, of total “ethnic” reconstruction (Umbau). On the other hand, the word “change” [Wandel] suggests an automatic transformation without political assistance, as if the weather is changing or the fashion or lifestyle of man over the course of time. This too is not the case: state measures alone are enabling the settlement of Africans, beginning with the ferry service on the Mediterranean through to the quasi-legal smuggling via misused “asylum law” and ending with the provision of health insurance, full rations, money and free accommodation. That is not a “change” [Wandel], but a state driven process of transformation [Veränderungsprocess] from beginning to end.
The somewhat risky word “ethnic” is readily replaced in state-speak — as part of the usual obfuscation — with the word “social”. The preferred expression is “social change”, as if the settlement of Arabs is a purely “social” and “societal” process, and as if the encounter between the two ethnicities, the Germans and the Arabs, were distinguishable only by their different levels of prosperity, but not through different languages, religion, traditions, norms and values. Also the word “culture” supports the camouflage: in fact, it is not just “cultures” that are being “settled”, but other nations which are quite confidently parading the fact with Turkish flags, thousands of times over, in Cologne. The Turkish flag does not represent a “culture”, but the Turkish nation.
But let us not to waste too much time reflecting on the language of state propaganda, which in any case is nothing but a bizarre accumulation of lies and a deliberate manipulation of language designed to lead the stupid German Fritz further into the delusion that Germany will remain Germany. So long as he believes that, peace will remain to the huts, the settlement policy can calmly continue and war will not come to the palaces.
The “Great Replacement” is one of the best known concepts currently common among the opposition, the Identitarian movement above all being among its users. While this expression describes events the way they actually unfold, it falls somewhat short of the ideal; there is really no replacement taking place in the strict sense of the term. Although Africans and Arabs are being settled, Germans are not being resettled. What we are experiencing is a displacement: Arabs settle and Germans move away. We first observed this process on a small scale in individual houses and streets, then in entire urban districts. Today this two-way settlement movement is affecting entire cities and broad regions, above all in North Rhine-Westphalia [NRW]. Although the word “replacement” describes this process quite well for the affected areas — in NRW we are experiencing a “replacement” of the population — the word does not apply to all of Germany, for Germans leaving NRW move to Saxony or Bavaria and the aggregate number of Germans in Germany remains unchanged by the settlement of Arabs.
The word “colonisation” is perfectly applicable, for this term gives expression not only to the ethnic events, but also to the power-political background and repercussions. It has been known for a long time that not only is the German government deliberately pressing forward with the policy of settling Central Europe with Turks, but also the Turkish government has at least as strong an interest in the expansion of their own geographical sphere of influence. But several Arab states, especially Morocco, are also increasingly pursuing such a policy. Pakistan too has recognised the political power opportunities which are opening up by the relocation of as many of their own citizens as possible to Western Europe. Likewise the colonists themselves do not see themselves only as cohabitants in another country, who by more or less crossing the border set aside all loyalty to their homeland in exchange for a new loyalty to different country. Quite the contrary, they often see themselves as an extended spearhead, as carriers of the interests of their homeland, whereas the German native population are perceived as a necessary evil which is still to be tolerated over a period of transition (“we will dominate you”, “we will gas you”).
No word in the German language, however, describes the process of ethnic transformation more suitably on the whole than “Umvolkung”, which is formed from a conflation of the two terms “Um(bau)” [total re-construction] and “Volk“ [an ethnic people]. For that is precisely what is happening in Germany even today; in fact, it is happening precisely according to the same timetable which the Third Reich had in store for several peoples of Eastern Europe: instead of enslavement and physical extermination, the Reich envisioned a gradual assimilation and ultimately an absorption of the native population into the mass of German settlers. The National Socialists could have achieved this objective peacefully in a number of ways: propagandistic valorisation of the settlers and devalorisation of the local culture would have automatically awakened the wish of the indigenous population to assimilate — everyone naturally wants to belong to the victors. They would only have had to strengthen this wish slightly through soft political pressure, in order to hasten the integration and assimilation process; for example, by granting the local inhabitants fewer rights than the German settlers when it came to applications for official posts or before the courts. This is approximately what one might picture regarding the planned policy of Umvolkung in the Third Reich had it ever been implemented after the war.
Once again all these central elements of a successful policy of Umvolkung are facing us again: the exaggerated propagation of the alleged cultural achievements of the settlers (‘Day of the Open Mosque’, glorification of veiling, how beautifully the muezzin sounds!) alongside simultaneous propagation of the shadow side of one’s own nation and culture (the evil Catholic Church, Auschwitz, witch burning, the West was never anything more than horrific). The state systematically favours settlers (migrant quotas, migrant-bonus before the courts), tolerates settlers’ violence against the native population and thereby implicitly approves it — so goes everyday life in the Multicoloured Republic.
And these measures are in fact beginning to take effect: one must concur with Bettina Kudla’s statement that “Umvolkung has long since begun”. The interplay of all these measures to date — colonisation and the state sponsored initiation of a process of ethnic dissolution of the native population — has triggered, even today, a wish in many Germans which lies very close to biological evolution: people no longer shape their own future, and above all the future of their children, to their own ethnic group; instead they conform it to becoming part of that ethnic group which they perceive to be more successful and more promising; German men are converting to Islam, German women are specifically seeking Turks and Arabs as spouses in order to bear Turkish and Arab children whom the state presumably favours. All this is part of Umvolkung in the strict sense. Not only does this trend entail the state-implemented settlement of a new nation in a country, but in fact it is an integrated, stealthy, superficially peaceful inter-ethnic process, but one deliberately forced through state pressure. This process will end only when the settled ethnic group has established itself as a determining political power, ideally also forming the majority. And the Volk who originally lived in this country, except for the withdrawn social remnants, will be neither culturally nor physiologically discernible.
It will still take a while before this trans-ethnicisation process [Umvolkungsprozess] of the approximately 60 million Germans still living in Germany is completed. But this alters nothing of the fact that this process is already underway — on this point Bettina Kudla is right in any case. And it alters nothing of the fact that Umvolkung will end with the complete assimilation of the Germans into the settled ethnic groups if the current radicality of the settler policy is not finally stopped.
We have already seen in the first part of this series that the word “Umvolkung” is a re-creation from 2015 and that there exists no historical-linguistic continuity whatsoever with the way the word was applied during the National Socialist period. However, for those who wish to be more politically correct, instead of saying “Umvolkung”, they can of course also say “re-populating the population” [Umbevölkerungung] at any time. And for those to whom “Umvolkung” sounds too German, fortunately one can harken back to a long-established foreign word that describes precisely the same process: “ethnocide”.
1. “Our country is changing rapidly [Unser Land verändert sich]”: Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble made this statement in the immediate context of globalism as reported in the Hamburger Abendblatt (7 September 2016):
Berlin. In the Bundestag, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) called for quickly finding an answer to the growing anxiety of the citizens. “We have to prove now, that the integration of many refugees can succeed”. We are living through a “time for demagogues”. The task now, he said, is to bring the security risks under control. That will continue. Also globalisation makes many people insecure, said Schäuble, but added: “There is no help for it: Our country is undergoing change.” He said Germany must be prepared to also understand the changes as opportunities. [Emphasis added.]
2. “Peace to the huts and war to the palaces” [Friede den Hütten! Krieg den Palästen!]: This is the title of a controversial pamphlet by the politically radical or revolutionary Hessian writer, Georg Büchner (1813-1837). Many English speakers are familiar with Büchner’s play Woyzeck which has been made into film several times and also into an opera (Alban Berg). His first play, Danton’s Death (Dantons Tod), set during the French Revolution, is also well known.
|*||“Die Lösung” (The Solution) is a famous German poem by Bertolt Brecht about the uprising of 1953 in East Germany. Written in mid-1953, it is critical of the government and was not published at the time. It was first published in 1959 in the West German newspaper Die Welt.