Then there is only one thing to do …

A few weeks before his death in November 1947, German author and playwright Wolfgang Borchert wrote his now famous text “Then there is only one thing to do!”. In the form of a manifesto, he appealed to his fellow human beings all over the world (and especially in Germany) to refuse to participate in future wars (“Say NO!”). He sensed that politics and governments cannot be trusted and that citizens must be highly vigilant – and must not forget.
  “Then there is only one thing to do!” was something I read and discussed with my students in German lessons during my active teaching career. For many of my generation – born in the decade after the Second World War – another war with German involvement was unimaginable. But we also knew that peace is not granted, not even after 1945. In those decades, Borchert was a German author who was favoured by many teachers. His independent thinking, his youthful temperament, his resistance to the dictatorship and the National Socialist war, his easily understandable, empathetic and always humane poetry, which took up challenging everyday situations, always against war, invited young people in particular to identify with him.
  Tempi passati?
  Unfortunately, looking at our politics, the answer is clear. Yes, Germany’s policy, like that of most other European NATO states, has strayed far from the path of peace. Yes, and it is particularly shameful that German politics, which after 1945 should have had a special responsibility for peace and international understanding, wants to take the lead among the European warmongers.
  What began with the previous governments is set to reach top speed with the new German government to be formed in May. Germany wants to be a great power, its opponents have been identified and are to be fought “resolutely”, “with self-confidence” and “strength” all over the world. The passages in the coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD on foreign and war policy are clear: We are the good guys, endeavouring to “preserve peace in freedom and security”. We “want to be able to defend ourselves so that we don’t have to”. The bad guys are primarily the Russians. They are “the greatest and most direct threat to us”, are already waging a “brutal war of aggression in violation of international law” and the country’s president has one thing above all: a “thirst for power” that is “directed against the rules-based international order”.
  Regarding the war in Ukraine, it says: “We will provide Ukraine with comprehensive support so that it can effectively defend itself against the Russian aggressor and assert itself in negotiations [...] from a position of strength and on an equal footing [...]”. The whole narrative doesn’t add up. What remains is the threat of escalation against Russia.
  Friedrich Merz has explained what he actually means by this. The Crimean Bridge, connecting the Russian mainland with Crimea, is to be destroyed with German missiles (“Taurus”), which must be guided by German soldiers. The fact that Russia will not simply put up with this is being ignored. Ignorance of reality and many phrases that we know from our media. We are amazed of the utter simplicity meant to mobilise us.
  At the same time, however, our politicians must also be worried that citizens are perhaps not as simple-minded as the political slogans. Warmongering goes hand in hand with the dismantling of democracy. Democracy can be dangerous – for politicians and those in power.
  Freedom of opinion is essential for a democracy. That is why the coalition agreement has a special section entitled “Dealing with disinformation” – just before the chapter on war training. “Disinformation” is the political newspeak word (George Orwell, “1984”) for expressions of opinion against simplicity. In the newspeak of the coalition agreement, this means: “Targeted influence on elections and now everyday disinformation and ‘fake news’ are serious threats to our democracy, its institutions and social cohesion. The deliberate dissemination of false factual claims is not covered by freedom of opinion. That is why the non-governmental media regulator, while safeguarding freedom of opinion, must be able to take action against information manipulation as well as hate and agitation on the basis of clear legal guidelines.”
  Who, we ask, will be allowed to influence elections in future? Who decides what constitutes disinformation, “fake news” and false factual claims? What are hate and agitation? And where does Article 5 of the German Grundgesetz (freedom of opinion) state that expressions of opinion with false factual claims are prohibited? One could also correct them convincingly! And who is the non-governmental media regulator, and why and from whom does this non-governmental media regulator receive the executive authorisation to act? And what does this have to do with freedom of opinion?
  And what about us citizens?
  There is probably no general formula. In 2008, US political scientist Sheldon Wolin published a book on US politics after 11 September 2001 entitled “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism”. The thesis of this book is that the USA has become a “managed” illiberal sham democracy dominated by large corporations since 11 September. This “inverted totalitarianism” has totalitarian traits, albeit not openly, but by means of mental control of people and political actors using subtle methods of manipulation. The intention is an aggressive imperial foreign policy.
  What is the situation in Europe, what is the situation in Germany? Scientists like Rainer Mausfeld diagnose developments similar to those in the USA. I would add from today’s perspective: The methods are becoming less and less subtle and more and more openly authoritarian. According to opinion polls in Germany, a majority of respondents say that you can no longer openly express your opinion on certain topics in Germany. And many of them actually remain silent. Or even present themselves as obedient subjects who obediently go to demonstrations, obediently show “civil courage” and obediently protest.
  However: They still exist – people who refuse to be intimidated: committed citizens and even responsible politicians – albeit more so in other European countries. Two current examples of this:
  On 14 April, Kaja Kallas, the European Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Vice-President of the European Commission, threatened governments and EU candidate countries that there would be severe consequences if they took part in the Moscow celebrations to mark the 80^th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany. The threat was aimed primarily at Serbian President Vučić, who had announced his intention to attend. Two days later, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico spoke out and criticised Kallas in no uncertain terms (see box). He himself would, of course, travel to Moscow.
  For a few weeks now, a group led by German political scientist Ulrike Guérot has been preparing a Europe-wide peace campaign for 9 May 2025. More information can be found on the website https://europeanpeaceproject.eu/en/. Citizens from all European countries are invited and called upon to speak out in favour of a European peace policy and against the current war policy by publicly reading out a manifesto, from the window of their home or house, alone or together with others in a public square (see box).
  Back to the beginning. The fact that we teachers read and discussed texts by Wolfgang Borchert with our pupils was also an expression of our constitutional mandate: to help our pupils become peaceful and democratic fellow citizens ... and not mercenaries and obedient subjects fit for war. As teachers, we had sworn an oath to our constitution, not to the prevailing politics ... and not to constitutional amendments such as those in March 2025, which threaten to undermine the core of the original constitution. So, the question is: What will we do when the prevailing policy moves further and further away from the constitutional mandate? •