That isn't that simple. The economy in the east was totally run down. The companies were not designed to compete against each other. They either failed completely on the free market or had to be shut down because of environment and safety regulations (you did not have to see that you crossed the border to the DDR, you could smell it). Another thing is that a lot of western companies didn't see any reason for going to the east. The infrastructure was terrible and they were afraid that that the East-Germans were not used to work hard enough to compare to western workers (in socialism there was a right to have a job IIRC).

So far plenty of money has flown to the east but money alone doesn't solve the problem. The infrastructure has been vastly improved and several big factories were build in the East but even that is not enough.
Another problem is the rising of Nazism in some parts of the East. It definitely doesn't help to settle large international companies in those areas.

@OTH
I've never seen slaves that were given billions after billions of €.

Germans are engineers. That is like saying Americans are cowboys.

Some Germans are good engineers, but their knowledge since long is copied in other nations as well. and while some americans are cowboys indeed, other countries have farmers and cattle as well.

Economic realities were a bit harsher, we found out, than people 20 years ago imagined. not everything is possible to be realised in a desired way, just because it is wanted. The state cannot construct an economic system , he can only define and offer the framework in whioch economy unfolds. If the reality that is to be met is such that the framework of rules and defintions and invitations it offers does not attract investors and businessmen, then you cannot just wish it different. And this so far has been compensated, with varying success, by tremendous, incredible cashflow from West to East. Which is the reason why these stellar ammounts of money are not available for other purposes.

Reunification has proven to be hilariously expensive. they economic payoff from the effort do not compensate the investements, and it cannot be seen when it will do in the future. The better question is if it ever will do.

What is the richest state of the union? Texas? Maybe, I don't know for sure. Now compare it to let's say Montana, which I just learned is one of the poorest and economically most difficult terrains in the US (just have read a long piece of analysis and descriptionn about it that formed a whole long chapter in a book). Maybe the difference between the two states is not like the one between East and West Germans, neither in quality nor quantity, it is probably worse in Germany, but nevertheless - structural deficits and differences inside your system you have in the US, too. and lie us, you cannot just wish them away.

Hey, I am German, I can say that without being offended! :D
It is not different than us calling the British "Tommys" (if we had called them Charly, now that would have become one of history'S biggest jokes...)

Originally, this thread was about the reactions from Britain and France 20 years ago, and I mind you that not only did Mitterand line up with Thatcher who had some much more unpßolite things to say about Germany in 1989 and met Kohl with uptmost hostility, but - not mentioned in the articles since they completley ignored the American view of things - that Washington called in Moscow and asked them if they could intervene in Eastgermany to make things stop there so that control would not be lost over the situation.

Pretty much everybody - including ourselves - got simply overrolled by the speed by which events took place. In autumn 1989, I lft berlin and went to university in Osnabrück. I left a divided city, and five hours later I arrived in 450 km away Münster at my grandparents, as a first stop, which is 50 km SE of Osnbrück. there I was, having just left a sealed and dividec city - and my grandfather was greeting me five hours later with telling me in the door that the wall in Berlin had been opened in some places! Until then, we just had seen mass-escapes of Eastgermans making holiday in Hungary and pressing for being allowed to cross the border there. that it would end with the total collapse of the GDR, was not certain - and nobody saw it coming that quickly.

Seen that way, that there was panic in London, Paris and Washington, could be understood. as history has shown, it soon faded in just 2 or 3 months.

Oh yea, they robbed that money. You're right. Those bastards!

That doesn't make the situation any better though, for anyone. Now we know they take our money too. What do we do now?

Is there any point in your post?

How much money did Ukraine as a nation receive for the weapons that were taken/sold from it's armories to the western weapon merchants? How about the natural resources that Russia is forced to sell every year?

Like I said earlier, the west is actively keeping former East-Germany and other areas down.

Wow.. once again you have no idea what you are talking about and try to spin some stuff so that it fits your little world view.

Since you brought it up: What has the Ukraine to do with what is going on in the eastern part of Germany?

Do you really expect me to answer that BS?

Both were 'liberated' by the West. Mostly of everything of value and natural resources but hey, no promises were made.

Schroeder,

why not, I answered to your "BS".

I wish we had a "Do not feed the trolls" smilie

Please whatever you do, don't ask the citizens of the former eastern block nations how they feel about the 'new world order', their opinion about the subject is completely void. :roll:

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'd just like some recognition as to what exactly the whole post-unification of Germany era is about. I'm sure it's not a one-sided thing, like I said there was plenty of corrupt governments in the former eastern block nations. There were successes also, Czech was quick to capitalise on tourism and has risen into a pretty vibrant place. But there were horrible failures also like the former Yugoslavia.

But hey, troll away ya'll if you'd rather do that then discuss rationally.

Unfortunately, you constatly disqualify yourself and display other goals then a honest discussion.. :nope:

Oh I don't know, ever since we icked the soviets out of here things are better. I kind of like to actually be able to go to the beaches without being shot at and not being randomly strip searched when traveling from town to town. I'd say things have deffinatly improved.
That being said, quite a few former east block nations are still in the ****ter, but thats not really a change for them. As for the balkans, they might be doing better if they stop trying to kill eachother all the time.

Yes I would say Estonia is another success story. The west didn't do much about the Balkans although it had the chance, nobody either cared or didn't see it coming. And then all of a sudden there were concentration camps in Europe again. I guess today we are wiser, I hope.

I knew that Thatcher and Bush senior tried to prevent unification and asked the Russians to send troops, and that Mitterand motivated Thatcher to expose herself over it, supporting the French desire to prevent reunification of Germany as well but without putting himself on display. What I did not know is that although Gorbatchev rejected the calls to send Soviet troops to East Germany, he nevertheless also was against German reunification - but like all others just learned that he got overrolled by the events. His acceptance of the new realities came later. But to say in defence of his honour, the use of force he ruled out from the very beginning on. By doing so, he played a much more honourable role than Bush, Thatcher or Mitterand, who called for the use of Soviet troops.

I start to understand that we have been extremely lucky that reunification took place. If events back then would have been accepted to be slowed down, maybe the Western and Soviet resistence would have become strong enough while there still was time, that today Germany would not be where it is now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8265117.stm

There have been faint comments in German press some days ago, about the very intense attacks against that German Colonel ordering that airstrike in Afghanistan that took out two hijacked fuel tankers, killed scores of Taliban and apparantly also civilians. These comments said that the fury over that airstrike is not only a payback of old bills (since Germany so often has lectured others about how to wage civilised war while not participating in the dirty part of the job itself), but maybe also has something to do with the fact that this has been the first time that the german army showed the willingness to use massive force again, where as before the world was used to see the German army as kind of a social caretaking group that drills for water and raises hospitals - but is not capable or willing to show a display of violence in combat again that the Wehrmacht of the Third Reich was feared for.

I would not overestimate that argument, but I think there is a grain of truth in it.

What is this?
You are probably not aware of it, but you sound like an arse.

Back on topic which is quite interesting actually.

Washington did not try to prevent unification.

The US position regarding German unification was this:
The Germans right of self-determination has to be respected: “No one except the Germans could decide the fate of Germany” (Baker in a letter to the German Chancellor, Febr. 10. 1990
http://books.google.de/books?id=cn8G...age&q=&f=false )

It was actually James Baker who persuaded the British representatives during negotiations in the night of Sept. 11/12 1990 to give up attempts to delay the unification process.

The negotiations in the end led to the “Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany”, also called “2 plus 4 Agreement”: the two Germany’s plus the four former Allies (and winners) of WW II: Soviet Union, USA, UK, France.

This agreement formally put an end to WW2 and this form of agreement was chosen instead of a "peace treaty".

It is no coincidence that it was called “2 plus 4” agreement and not “4 plus 2” agreement.

The German unification changed the power balance in Europe and there were concerns not only by Britain and France but by many other European countries, in particular Poland, the Netherlands and Italy, who feared an overpowered Germany.

As a result of the treaty Germany regained full sovereignty. The Soviet troops were to leave Eastern Germany by 1994 and the “four powers” gave up their special status towards Germany.

In return, Germany is not allowed to have more than 370.000 armed forces personnel (which meant that Germany had to reduce its combined armed forces strength which was at about 500.000), no foreign armed forces are allowed in Eastern Germany, Germany has to be an ABC-Weapon-Free-Zone and finally Germany once and for all accepts the German-Polish borderline and is prevented from making future claims to former German territory east of the German-Polish border.

Sounds like a fair deal to me.

It is hard to believe that this has happened just 20 years ago.

Well, at least I am aware of that you just made yourself one. And off to the ignore list you go. This kind of tone and language is not to be accepted.

BTW, the American (and British) initial rejection of German reunification is historic fact, having been reported and referred to since the early or mid-90s in books, discussions and public media, both print and TV. Maybe not in American media. Which is understandable since it violates official self-description.

Hello and farewell. Can't say it was a pleasure to meet you.

Sources?
That the UK (or should i better say Thatcher) and France were against reunification is pretty well-known. From what i know the US supported a unification right from the start and the Soviets were more or less bought with money.

I have problems to believe that a unification would have been possible against the will of all four allied nations. It were the US who finally persuaded both the french and Thatcher to give way ...:salute:

thats just weak skybird

I read and heared and saw it so often since the mid-90s (I was still at university) and at times when I even did not had internet. Confirmations have been given by the Fnech and the russians before, both officials and pirvate professionals like historians, editors, etc. Former czhancellor Helmut Schnidt also confirmed it, as have adivisors and people in the surrounding of the Kohl government.

Note that it is said that only Thather behaved stubbornly against it for longer time, 2-3 konths or so, but was pretty much isolated in her own government. Washington on the other hand was, like EVERYBODY, against reunificationb, and I know since the 90s that5 they also asked the Russians, like Thather, to prevent reunfication be sending in troops. However - and this part you may not ignore - events overrolled everybody, and Russia from the very beginning (Gorbatchev), France and America short time later, and last Britain understood the signs of changing times and gave official acceptance of what already was fact in reality - the wall was broken down, and the iron curtain was no longer a curtain at all.

All major nations did not want a united germany, bot after WWI, the story of Nazi-Ger,any coming back in the second half, and then WWII. Evberybody had settled down in the cold war, and made himself a comfortable nest in his corner of the mutual arrangement between West and East. It was stable. The Germans were tamed. Why messing things up again when it worked so wonderful? The talking about how uch one suzpported reunification in the future was just the kind of talking polticoians do: pathetic, bombastic, emotional, and not meant real. It was to please the crowd in the street, so that they kept smiling, calm and under control. Reunification was meant to come, sure. At some unspecific, far far away in the future. The longer the better for the status quo. The status quo was what was wanted. Even Gorbatchev has just admitted in that loinked interview he did not want Germany to reunite. He just rejected the means to achieve that from the very beginning while the three Wetsern powers wehre openly asking Moscow to send troops to keep the status quo.

As I said somewhere above, maybe it was jst the sheer pace by which events unfolded that made sure reunification was already unstoppable when wetsenr powers still had doubts on whether or not to accept a united Germany in the heart of europe again. And thank God, different to Thatcher who met Kohl with icecold and unhidden hostility in public comments, France and America came back to their senses within a short time, less than a month, if I recall it correctly.

That were the days before the internet. ;)