Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

4 BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000
Richard Croucher
bilateral relations were especially important. Gottfurcht and Luce were therefore central
to a strong and important institutional relationship.
What follows is relevant to the historical discussion on the rebuilding of trade
unionism in Germany. Many general scholarly surveys of British occupation
government pay little attention to the subject. 2 British memoirs tended to stress, and
almost certainly overestimate, the TUC’s influence in shaping German trade unionism. 3
Their viewpoint, first put during the occupation period, was sometimes adopted by
later historians. 4 This view has frequently been sharply criticised for underestimating
the weight of German activity.Discussion has focussed on the TUC’s first delegation
to Germany in 1945, and its role in Boeckler’s abandonment of the Einheitsgewerkschaft
concept. Some have seen the visit as determinant of later developments. 5 Yet,
as we demonstrate, later discussions are also significant. It has also been argued by
one recent historian that the TUC did not act independently of Manpower Division’s
alleged attempt to ‘export’ the British system of industrial relations to Germany.He
further contended that Manpower Division was less constructive than other parts of
the occupation government in developing the co-determination system. 6 We examine
the terms of discussion between the TUC and the British authorities in Germany at
two specific historical junctures in an attempt to throw further light on these subjects.
Our argument is that Gottfurcht had an important opportunity for debate with Manpower
Division that was not taken, and that this had consequences for the British
administration’s attitudes. It is also demonstrated that whatever Manpower Division’s
shortcomings, that Division was greatly preferred by Gottfurcht to other parts of the
occupation government.
The article begins by providing background. We sketch some of the concerns of
the German trade union movement at the time of the discussion, suggesting that the
juncture was an important one for the unions. The biographies of the two discussants
are also outlined. The core of the article is an account of the exchange between the
two men. This shows that Gottfurcht largely retreated from criticisms he had made
of the British Military Government in a report he had made to the TUC. Possible
reasons for his retreat are touched on. Finally, the exchange is contrasted with a later
one between a senior British official in Germany and the General Secretary of the
TUC, indicating the general direction of the British authorities’ attitudes.
During the first exchange, Luce rightly stressed that the context in early 1947 was
one in which many key issues remained unresolved and subject to discussion. British
policy was still evolving. The position was critical since trade union organisation
was taking shape. The industrial relations system more widely, in terms of employers’
associations and the operation of Works Councils (revived from below immediately
after the war and given a new legal basis by the Allied Control Council’s Law 22 of
April 1946), was at an early point in its evolution. 7 In these circumstances, the new
union organisations might have some influence. Indeed, they saw this and sought to