552
PARTISAN REVIEW
pre-unification Federal Republic but is about to become dominant in
East Central Europe. This will change Europe as a whole more pro–
foundly than the architects of reunification on both sides of the Atlantic
intended. Germany will be the dominant Westernized nation-state in the
new Europe. The predominance of such a nation-state is not necessarily a
cause for concern.
In
fact, a Germany that openly pursues its national in–
terests in Eastern Europe, the democratization and marketization of the
former Communist nations, will be a more reliable and predictable part–
ner for its allies.
Igor Webb:
Thank you very much for your fascinating and illuminating
talks and comments. Following our format, the panelists should have a
chance to briefly discuss with each other, and then we'll open the floor
to questions. We've had three particular kinds of emphases: One, the
enormity of the past and how both individually and socially one can or
cannot cope with it, and the difficulty of doing so. Two, the various
uses that the present imposes on the memory that one might or might
not have of the past. And finally, the very complex heritages that have
made the unification of Germany so complicated.
Margarete Mitscherlich:
I
must admit that some things have been dif–
ficult for me to understand. But I kept thinking, Professor Koch, that
you are a bit too optimistic. I wonder whether you can really rely on
this Germany, even if it takes time to come together. I believe you said
that it was really East Germany which was responsible for a kind of
peaceful revolution. But Germany never really had a revolution; that was
an illusion. I think that without the breakdown of the Soviet Union
there would not have been any breakdown of East Germany either.
It
was more the impossibility of getting along with the whole capitalist
world which led to many other events and to the breakdown of Russian
Communism. I think Gorbachev was much more of a force behind the
possibility of East Germany having a successful "revolution" than were
the East Germans themselves.
Igor Webb:
Next.
David Gress:
I
confine myself to a couple of points to do mostly with
Dr. Mitscherlich's paper.
In
my paper, I expressed great admiration for
the method by which you take psychology
~nd
expand it to cultural in–
terpretation. I stand by that. However, I want to take issue with another
point, Dr. Mitscherlich. You take the individual's psychology, and you
interpret how the individual deals with collective or individual memory,
