IN DEFENSE OF WHAT MUST BE SAID BY GÜNTER GRASS

Kristijan Krkač

The poem

The poem “What must be said” by Günter Grass was published in Suddeutsche Zeitung, April 4, 2012 and I supply it in two similar English translations. Let us start with the “whole” poem and let us read it.

1. Why have I kept silent, held back so long,on something openly practiced inwar games, at the end of which those of uswho survive will at best be footnotes?

Why I am silent, silent for too much time, how much is clear and we made it in war games, where, as survivors, we are just the footnotes.

2. It's the alleged right to a first strikethat could destroy an Iranian peoplesubjugated by a loudmouthand gathered in organized rallies,because an atom bomb may be beingdeveloped within his arc of power.

That is the claimed right to the formal preventive aggression which could erase the Iranian people dominated by a bouncer and moved to an organized jubilation, because in the area of his competence there is the construction of the atomic bomb.

3. Yet why do I hesitate to namethat other land in whichfor years—although kept secret—a growing nuclear power has existedbeyond supervision or verification,subject to no inspection of any kind?

And then why do I avoid myself to call the other country with its name, where since years - even if secretly covered - there is an increasing nuclear power, without control, because unreachable by every inspection?

4. This general silence on the facts,before which my own silence has bowed,seems to me a troubling lie, and compelsme toward a likely punishmentthe moment it's flouted:the verdict "Anti-semitism" falls easily.

I feel the everybody silence on this state of affairs, which my silence is slave to, as an oppressive lie and an inhibition that presents punishment we don’t pay attention to; the verdict “anti-Semitism” is common.

5. But now that my own country,brought in time after timefor questioning about its own crimes,profound and beyond compare,is said to be the departure point,(on what is merely business,though easily declared an act of reparation)for yet another submarine equippedto transport nuclear warheadsto Israel, where not a single atom bombhas yet been proved to exist, with fear alonethe only evidence, I'll say what must be said.

Now, since my country, from time to time touched by unique and exclusive crimes, obliged to justify itself, again for pure business aims - even if with fast tongue we call it “reparation” - should deliver another submarine to Israel,with the specialty of addressingannihilating warheads where the existence of one atomic bomb is not proved but it wants evidence as a scarecrow, I say what must be said.

6. But why have I kept silent till now?Because I thought my own origins,Tarnished by a stain that can never be removed,meant I could not expect Israel, a landto which I am, and always will be, attached,to accept this open declaration of the truth.

Why did I stay silent until now? Because the thought about my origin, burdened by an unclearing stain, had avoiding to wait this fact like a truth declared by the State of Israel that I want to be connected to.

7. Why only now, grown old,and with what ink remains, do I say:Israel's atomic power endangersan already fragile world peace?

Why did I say it only now, old and with the last ink: the nuclear power of Israel threat the world peace? 

8. Because what must be said Because it must be said 

may be too late tomorrow;and because—burdened enough as Germans—we may be providing material for a crimethat is foreseeable, so that our complicitywill not be expunged by anyof the usual excuses.

what tomorrow will be too late; Because - as Germans and with enough faults on the back - we might also become deliverers of a predictable crime, and no excuse would erase our complicity.

9. And granted: I've broken my silencebecause I'm sick of the West's hypocrisy;and I hope too that many may be freedfrom their silence, may demandthat those responsible for the open dangerwe face renounce the use of force,may insist that the governments ofboth Iran and Israel allow an international authorityfree and open inspection ofthe nuclear potential and capability of both.

And I admit: I won’t be silent because I had enough of the Western hypocrisy; Because I wish that many will want to get rid of the silence, exhorting the cause of a recognizable risk to the abdication, asking that a free and permanent control of the Israel atomic power and the Iran nuclear bases will be made by both the governments with an international supervision.

10. No other course offers helpto Israelis and Palestinians alike,to all those living side by side in enmityin this region occupied by illusions,and ultimately, to all of us.

Only in this way, Israelis, Palestinians, and everybody,all people living hostile face to face in thatcountry occupied by the craziness, will have a way out, so us too.

translated by Breon Mitchell http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/05/gunter-grass-what-must-be-said

Translated by Alessandro Ghebreigziabiherhttp://www.payvand.com/news/12/apr/1035.html

An analysis

I

It is a fact that the poem “What must be said” wasn’t written by a brave American, English, or French, but by a German poet. This fact has some importance since it takes courage to create such poem on an occasion such as this in case of all of us, and especially in case of Germans since this occasion for them lasts for them almost 70 years. The title is also significant since something “must” be said. It isn’t about something that “should”, “might”, that we “may or may not” say, or that we “ought” to say. So, there is a “necessity” to say something, a kind of “obligation”. In such cases one is naturally inclined to think that something “must” be “done” as a result of what is said. And this is what Grass wants at least in the 9 th and 10th parts; in other parts it seems that he is simply talking to himself. Finally, if one knows anything about German literature and poetry in 20th century and about the work of Grass in this context, than one would have to recognize that he wrote a beautiful poem in relatively free style. Israelis must be going completely mad because of the fact that their actions can be discussed in such beautiful and elegant manner. Now, besides being a poem, it seems to be a tractate or a discussion in the same time. Both issues will be argued for in what follows. Now, I don’t want to enter into “anti-semitism” debate because it is completely misguided. This simply isn’t relevant topic. In other words, it was misunderstood by an army of Israelis doing nothing else but finding “anti-semitic” elements in contemporary culture and condemning their authors. They look to me like a combination of Christian ethical authors who tried to compile handbooks of moral rules for each and every possible situation in daily life, actions of inquisition, and of theologists who tried to compile lists of forbidden ideas, theories, and beliefs (so called Denzinger, Index, and Syllabus). The poem simply “expressed frustration with the Western hypocrisy that challenges Iran's nuclear program when Israel's own secretive nuclear program has never been officially acknowledged.” (Ghebreigziabiher, 2012)

2

II

Let us turn now to what is important about the poem. The first important issue is its dual structure, namely, poetic and discussion aspects. These two aspects meet in the 7 th part which is the centre of the poem and in which Grass sings that Israelis endanger world peace by their atomic power. A simple separation of these parts of the poem shows both aspects of its structure and it would be the following (as shown in Table 1).

Table 1: Parts, rhythm and tempo of the poem

So, its rhythm and tempo would be like the following “●●●▬●●●▬”. What is interesting is the relation of these structure aspects with the poem’s content. Poetic aspect represents alleged “illusion” by simply being poetic, yet it reveals “reality”, while discussion aspect represents alleged “reality” by simply being a discussion, yet it points to the “illusion” (a social construction of a kind). Both aspects of the structure meet in the 7 th part but only as far as they meet under the unifying question “Why?” and a series of answers. There are so to say “two whys” and two groups of answers as two “becauses”, namely answer to “him” and to “us” (as shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1: To whom is Grass talking to and who is asked?

In the discussion aspect Grass is asking questions and supplying answers. However, this aspect isn’t just an internal dialogue between Grass and Germans, Israelis, Iranians, Palestinians, the world, each and everyone of us, or to(o) human inside him. It has more strict form. 1st part is the formulation of the question or the topic, from 2nd to 6th part he gives the description, 7th section is so to say his thesis, parts from 8 th to 9th and partly 10th are arguments

3

for the thesis, and 10th is in part a conclusion. In order to see this form one needs to another pair of aspects, that is – the personal and non-personal aspect (as shown in Figure 2).

Figure 2: personal and non-personal aspects of the poem

What remains to be said here is to back up this general reading of the poem. The idea is about multiple-dual structures, or about the analogy between many similarities between seemingly opposed aspects of the issue (to say it in the terminology and the spirit of morphology that is so exposed in many German speaking geniuses such as Goethe, Spengler, and Wittgenstein). Some of these similarities and analogies are the following: poetic-discussion (poetic: differences in rhythm and tempo; discussion: with himself and others), reality-illusion (reality of war and atom bomb and illusion of peace and solution by the bomb), personal-objective (personal difference between being silent and talking, objective difference between lack of evidence and the mere possibility of evidence, and between presumption of evidence and complete lack of evidence for atomic weapons).

III

Now, let us go from verse to verse in order to back up this by the actual text. 1 st: Grass is simply formulating the topic. But he also starts questioning himself. Additionally, there is a seeming duality between silence and openness. 2nd: the opposition between right to strike first and mere possibility of evidence that gives the right. 3rd: here we have a continuation and development of the seeming opposition, that is, between the right to attack first, but without any evidence of the same power on the side of the one who has alleged right. 4 th: general silence is the silence of the world, USA, UN, etc. It is also silence about the facts and in the same time loudly pronouncing mere possibilities as well founded judgments. Grass announces that it is a lie. 5th: the main reason for speaking is because Germany will take part in action that is based on a lie. Here meets his own past, present, and possible future and the world’s as well. The paradox is that Germany has to prove to be anti-semitic by being openly pro-Israel, and to prove not to be genocide-nation anymore by taking part in genocide. 6 th: He speaks because somebody has to say the truth opposed to previously noted lies. 7 th: is the thesis and the centre idea. Also, it is the answer to the question – why now – because Israel cannot accept the truth. 8th: here Grass supplies two arguments for his thesis: first is because tomorrow may be too late, and second is because Germans will in fact prove to be genocide nation all the time. So, paradox is simple – if Germans don’t take part it will prove that they are anti-semitic ergo genocide, and if they take part they will take part in genocide. It’s the lose–lose situation. Perhaps Germans shouldn’t do anything. On the other hand – some things must be said … and done. So they must do something. 9th: third argument is supplied – hypocrisy of the West. In what follows Grass is formulating the right criterion, international authority conduct free and open inspection of both Israel and Iran. This is the action that must be done and it follows from what must be said. 10 th: this is a conclusion that follows from the criterion as reality as a solution to the illusion that occupied the whole region of the Middle East. Now, his personal debate with himself ends with his confession between the lines, and his non-personal debate ends with solid reasons for the sensible thesis that could and perhaps

4

should make Germany change its mind. After all, there are other countries from which nuclear war heads can be sent to Israel. Why they aren’t sent from England or France? Why should it be Germany?

IV

Not just because all of the elements, aspects, and layers of the poem, but because so to say the aspect-changes (Aspekt-wechsel), changes in tempo and rhythm, and of course because it has a strong message that is bravely stated it is a beautiful strong poem. What contributes to its strength is discussion aspect that fluctuates between personal and international issues. The poet supplies solid arguments for his thesis. Generally speaking, as so many times before, Grass again manages to show us what it means to be a strong poet in the most brilliant poetic manner (strong poet in the sense described by R. Rorty). Thanks Mr. Grass.

5