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. ;)

Feel free to accept personal insults in your face, if you like. But I do not tolerate it if it is repeatedly, as in other cases, or is beyond a certain treshold limit from the beginning on, like here. It is below my standards, and in real life I throw such guests out.

Whether you find that weak or not, I do not ask you. As I see it, I solve a problem now and in the future that else would be a subject for the moderators. that is no censorship of mine, nor is it about differing opinion. It is about behaviour. And if minimum standards of behaviour are not kept, the given indiviudal I do not wish to have to deal with again.

End of issue. End of message.

End of story.

When he puts someone on his "ignore list", he likes to hide behind his supposedly sensitive soul that cannot accept "insults" or "unreasonable" comments, while he's very good at dishing out that very same medicine himself all the time.
Almost everyone who doesn't fall for his rhetorical smokescreen and is contradicting him in earnest more than once - and is not a mod at the same time - will end up in this exquisite club.

All you need to know about this character is that he loves to preach, but never likes to listen.

Ok I just have to :D

There might have been a bit of trepidation by some aging WW2 vets but American public opinion at the time was pretty much reflected in the phrase "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall". After all, by the late '80's there was a heckuva lot more of us who had spent time defending Germany than there were who had spent time fighting it.

I remember a joke from shortly after the reunification.
"Germany needs to stay separated! An arse has always two parts."

BTW Mitterrand and Thatcher didn't want to stop the reunification. It was just that they loved Germany so much that they were glad there were two of them.
:D