On 15 October 1965, the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany published a ‘Protestant memorandum’ entitled: ‘The Situation of the Displaced Persons and the German People’s Relationship with their Eastern Neighbours’. The document, which became known as the EKD’s ‘Eastern Memorandum’, addresses issues relating to German-Polish relations that were contentious at the time. The Eastern Memorandum is regarded as one of the most important political and moral statements of the post-war period and as a significant contribution to understanding between Germans and Poles.

Alongside the memoranda on property policy (1962) and on the reorganisation of agriculture (1965), the ‘Ostdenkschrift’ was one of a total of three memoranda published by the Council of the EKD in the first half of the 1960s. This new form of church statement was preceded by discussions within Protestant circles regarding the church’s ‘political mandate’. This controversy, which took place mainly within the Protestant academies, arose from the demand for the church to take a stronger stance on political , social and societal issues. The advocates argued in favour of the church leadership taking an active part in public debates. They contended that it should adopt clear positions and provide guidance.

Those who opposed the church’s socio-political engagement were, above all , those who regarded pastoral care and charitable work as the church’s primary task. As a consequence of the Protestant Church’s entanglement with National Socialism , they called for the Church to maintain neutrality in all political matters and to confine itself to its genuine mission.

The intention behind the ‘Ostdenkschrift’ was inspired above all by the public reactions to the Tübingen Memorandum (‘More Truth in Politics!’) , published in February 1962 . In it, eight prominent authors – including the President of the Protestant Church in the Rhineland and Chair of the EKD Council, Prof. Joachim Beckmann (1901–1987), as well as the Chair of the EKD Chamber for Public Responsibility, Prof. Ludwig Raiser (1904–1980), called on the Federal Government, amongst other things, to normalise political relations with Germany’s eastern neighbours and to recognise the Oder-Neisse border .

Planning for a memorandum on the East began in the summer of 1962 within the EKD’s Chamber for Public Responsibility, rather than within the Committee on the Eastern Churches, which represented the displaced persons within the EKD. Internal church tensions delayed the project, particularly the Eastern Churches Committee’s unyielding refusal to reconsider its legal and political positions. In the autumn of 1963, work on the ‘Ostdenkschrift’ continued under the leadership of Ludwig Raiser, without the involvement of the Committee on the Eastern Churches . Following consultations with experts, including EKD committee members from the GDR – who were, however, unable to participate directly in the editorial work – two key objectives emerged: on the one hand, the aim was to address the concerns of East German refugees and displaced persons with their demand for the ‘‘right to a homeland’”. On the other hand, this issue was to be placed within a broader political, historical and international legal context, to be viewed “in the spirit of reconciliation” between Germans and their eastern neighbours. The ‘Ostdenkschrift’ was intended to express a sense of responsibility towards the displaced persons as well as a commitment to mutual understanding between nations, particularly with Poland, and to contribute to a more objective debate on West Germany’s Ostpolitik. In August 1965, the EKD’s Chamber for Public Responsibility submitted the memorandum, which was published in October with the approval of the EKD Council.

The 44-page ‘Ostdenkschrift’ comprises six chapters, preceded by a foreword by the President of the EKD, Kurt Scharf (1902–1990). The first three chapters deal with the erosion of German Protestantism’s foundations caused by the loss of several regional churches, the situation of displaced persons in the Federal Republic, and the current situation in the areas beyond the Oder-Neisse border . Chapters four to six discuss the key issues: questions of international law, theological and ethical aspects, and future political tasks. These set out that it is not the Church’s role to formulate specific solutions, such as the recognition of the Oder–Neisse border. The Federal Government is presented with sound reasons for its wait-and-see approach regarding the status of the former German Eastern Territories at the international level . A premature certificate for the provisions contained in the 1945 Potsdam Protocol regarding expulsions and territorial cessions would constitute a politically unwise surrender of valuable foundations and subjects for future peace negotiations. Furthermore, the injustice of the expulsions must not be glossed over. These contentious issues and all territorial changes require joint treaty arrangements. The negative term ‘renunciation’, used by associations of displaced persons in the context of the loss of their homeland , was unsuitable as a description of Germany’s contribution to a peace settlement which was, after all, intended to establish a new partnership between nations. The imperative was not the recognition of the existing status quo on the border issue, but rather an agreement under international law yet to be negotiated, which must be preceded by a process of understanding and reconciliation in which the questions of historical guilt and responsibility should be addressed by all parties involved. Ultimately, however, the Ostdenkschrift suggested abandoning the goal of restoring the 1937 borders.

With regard tothe ‘right to a homeland’postulated by the associations of displaced persons, the Ostdenkschrift criticised the sacralisation of the concept of homeland and emphasised the ‘hierarchy of rights’, according to which the earthly homeland is subordinate to God’s salvific action. Reference was made here to the then widespread view that the‘right to a homeland’corresponded to a ‘divine right’; an interpretation which can be traced back, amongst other things, to the 1950 Charter of the German Displaced Persons, which describes ‘the right to a homeland as one of the fundamental rights bestowed by God’.

However, according to the memorandum, the theological elements of the concept of homeland could by no means establish an inalienable human right to a homeland. Nor could the political claims associated with the right to a homeland be based on theological justifications of the concept of homeland. Rather, the Christian relationship to one’s homeland is characterised by the obedient use of its resources and by a fundamental willingness to renounce them. It would contradict the premise ofa ‘right to a homeland’to demand that space be made available for the return of the German population, as this would give rise to new injustices. Ultimately, this meant respecting the right to a homeland of the new Polish population.

The ‘Ostdenkschrift’ set out an alternative to the prevailing discourse on East German policy in the Federal Republic, which had until then been significantly influenced by the associations of displaced persons . It demonstrated that a new perspective on our neighbours to the East and on the mutual suffering was possible, and that flight and expulsion could – and must – be viewed within their full historical and causal context. The authors of the memorandum identified the loss of home suffered by millions of East Germans, as well as flight and expulsion, as a clear consequence of the crimes of National Socialism in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland. They concluded from this that their own position towards their Eastern European neighbours should not be limited to insisting on legal claims.

Their reluctance regarding practical solutions for the future also made it clear that continuing to cling to the idea of restoring pre-war conditions in the eastern territories had by now become an illusion. Twenty years after the end of the war, the restoration of the former territory of the German Reich was nothing more than a pipe dream , particularly for the representatives of the displaced persons, who consequently came under increasing public pressure. They were now forced to explain how consistently and seriously they intended to adhere to the renunciation of‘revenge and retribution’ set out in the Displaced Persons’ Charterin light of the fact that, by 1965, over three million Poles had been born in the western territories of Poland, who now, for their part, regardedthese territories as their homeland. The demand forthe ‘right to a homeland’and the return of the displaced persons to the former German eastern provinces implied by it were increasingly sidelined, as they were regarded as a starting point for a renewed expulsion. The EKD Council’s ‘Eastern Memorandum’ challenged the interpretative authority of the expellees’ associations on Eastern European issues and cast doubt on their role as opinion leaders, as well as their monopolistic claim to shaping relations with the eastern neighbours.

Political reactions to the ‘Ostdenkschrift’ ranged from enthusiastic approval from the SPD and the FDP, through mixed responses from the CDU, to outright rejection and fierce criticism from organised expellee groups. The Federation of Displaced Persons called on the General Synod of the EKD to distance itself “from this tendentious document produced by a minority”, arguing that it was “not a suitable basis for a fruitful dialogue between the Protestant Church and the democratically elected bodies representing the displaced persons”. They levelled accusations of the abuse of ecclesiastical authority, speaking of amateurism, irresponsibility and submission to atheistic systems.^[1] Public calls were made to leave the Protestant Church. Unfounded suspicions were levelled against the authors of the memorandum; there were death threats and arson attacks, as well as a large number of abusive and threatening letters.

The unanimous rejection of the memorandum by the organisations representing displaced persons cast a shadow over the entire Protestant effort to support displaced persons. At the same time, it became apparent that the vociferous criticism from the displaced persons’ associations by no means reflected the views of all Protestant displaced persons. Rather, the ‘process of the disintegration of the previous unity’ had long since begun amongst the displaced persons.^[2] For many displaced persons and refugees – the majority of whom were not members of the associations anyway – the ‘Eastern Memorandum’ prompted a Christian reflection on their personal fate and on the future of their former homeland. Contrary to some contemporary fears, however, the memorandum by no means led to a fundamental alienation of the displaced persons from the Protestant Church.

Supporters of the ‘Ostdenkschrift’ saw it as a contribution to breaking down entrenched ways of thinking and attributed a galvanising effect to it. It was hoped that it would mark a departure from ‘mere legalism’ and a turn towards proactive politics, as well as the ‘courage to question’ and a willingness to ‘rethink’.^[3] As recent research shows, in 1965–66 around two-thirds welcomed the memorandum’s statements, whilst one-third firmly rejected them.^[4]

In Poland , the Eastern Memorandum initially attracted little attention. Although the leadership of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland and its bodies welcomed the document, the small number of Polish Protestants meant there was insufficient scope for it to resonate. The few comments in the party-controlled media coverage focused primarily on the campaign waged by the associations of displaced persons against the memorandum.^[5]

In the Catholic press, particularly in the magazines *Więź* and *Znak*, the reaction was predominantly positive.^[6]The Eastern Memorandum aroused particular interest among the Polish bishops. The Archbishop of Wrocław, Bolesław Kominek ( 1903–1974), the initiator of the exchange of letters between the Polish and German bishops in late 1965, was particularly encouraged by the theological and ethical arguments concerning the issues of the ‘right of return’ and the German eastern borders. He saw in it ‘proof that the main problem dividing the two peoples—the Oder-Neisse line, in all its complexity and deep-rootedness—is recognised’, and that an attempt was being made ‘to understand the other side, the other people, quite honestly’. The authors of the Protestant memorandum, for whose personal courage he had great respect, were , he said, ‘heralds of deep currents within the German people’ who were pointing in the right direction.^[7]

The Eastern Memorandum initially had no immediate political impact. The Federal Government during the term of office (1963–1966) of Federal Chancellor Ludwig Ehrhard (1897–1977) adopted a cautious stance and adhered to its previous policy towards the East. Nor did it have any immediate influence on the Polish-German exchange of letters between the Catholic bishops that followed a few months later; however, it is likely that, alongside Bolesław Kominek, other Polish bishops were also encouraged to approach their German counterparts (November 1965).

In the period that followed, the ‘Eastern Policy Memorandum’ proved to be a powerful argumentative force. Its key messages and the discussions it sparked contributedto a ‘psychological easing of tensions’ amongst the West German public towards Poland and to a shift in attitudes regarding the displaced persons and the issue of the Oder–Neisse border. Although these changes were not solely attributable to the ‘Ostdenkschrift’, it did promote this process in a lasting way, provided it with important impetus and contributed to German society’s recognition of post-war realities. A few years later, the EKD’s ‘Ostdenkschrift’ became a valuable source of ideological support for the new Ostpolitik of the social-liberal coalition.

• Piotr Burgoński, Gregor Feindt, Bernhard Knorn: Political Discourse and Religious Interventions. The Church’s Discourse on German-Polish Reconciliation in Selected Key Texts. In: Urszula Pękala, Irene Dingel (eds.): The Struggle for Reconciliation. Religion and Politics between Germany and Poland since 1945, Göttingen 2018, pp. 113–151.
• Gregor Feindt: Between ‘Right to a Homeland” and Reconciliation. In: Journal of East Central European Studies, Vol. 58 (2009), pp. 433–467.
• Severin Gawlitta: “In the spirit of the Council! Out of concern for our neighbours!”. The 1965 correspondence between Polish and German bishops and its contexts. Marburg, 2016.
• Martin Greschat: The ‘Ostdenkschrift’ – History of its origins and reception. In: Bernd Krebs, Annette Kurschus, Dirk Stelter (eds.): Divided Memory – Reconciled History? German and Polish Protestants Caught Between the Ideologies of the 20th Century. Stuttgart 2020, pp. 41–49.
• Martin Greschat: “More Truth in Politics”. The Tübingen Memorandum of 1961. In: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, vol. 48 (2008), pp. 489–515.
• Martin Greschat: From the Tübingen Memorandum (1961) to the ratification of the Eastern Treaties (1972). Protestant contributions to reconciliation with Poland. In: Friedhelm Boll, Wiesław Wysocki (eds.): Reconciliation and Politics. Polish–German Reconciliation Initiatives of the 1960s and the Policy of Détente. Bonn 2009, pp. 29–51.
• Helmut Hild: What was the impact of the EKD’s memorandum? In: Friedbert Pflüger, Winfrid Lipscher (eds.): Enemies Became Friends. On the difficulties of German–Polish neighbourly relations. Bonn 1993, p. 90–102.
• The Situation of the Displaced Persons and the German People’s Relationship with their Eastern Neighbours. A Protestant Memorandum. Hanover 1965.
• Piotr Madajczyk: The EKD’s memorandum on the situation of the displaced persons and the German people’s relationship with their eastern neighbours. In: Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. 24 (2011), pp. 415–435.
• Theo Mechtenberg: Germany – Poland: The public impact of the EKD memorandum compared with the correspondence of the Catholic bishops in 1965. In: Ost-West Informationsdienst, No. 189 (1996), pp. 41–50.
• Thomas Mittmann: Ecclesiastical Academies in the Federal Republic. Social, Political and Religious Self-Positioning. Göttingen 2011.
• Sabine Vosskamp: The Catholic Church and Displaced Persons in West Germany. Integration, Identity and the Discourse on East German Policy 1945–1972. Stuttgart 2007.

• (Text of thedocument: The Situation of the Displaced Persons and the German People’s Relationship with their Eastern Neighbours. A Protestant memorandum. Hanover 1965.)

[1] Statement by the Presidential Board of the Federation of Displaced Persons on the EKD memorandum dated
27 October 1965, in: Statements, p. 120

[2] Fritz Gause: Essen and its fellow citizens displaced from the East, Essen 1971. p. 20.

[3] Vosskamp: Displaced Persons, p. 275.

[4] Greschat: On the Tübingen Memorandum, p. 37

[5] Jarosław Kłaczkow: Kościół Ewangelicko-Augsburski w Polsce w latach 1945–1975 [The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland, 1945–1975], Toruń 2010, p. 318 ff.

[6] Stefan Bakinowski: Memorandum of the Evangelical Church in Germany, in: *Więź*, special edition 1994, *Poles and Germans: A Contribution to the History of Dialogue*, pp. 31–34 (first published in Polish in issue 12, 1965).

[7] Quoted from: Gawlitta: In the Spirit of the Council, p. 128.

Severin Gawlitta: The EKD’s ‘Ostdenkschrift’. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2023. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/43233.html (as at 11 August 2023).