Not even an icy welcome for German reunification
 

Long but substantial read:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...719848,00.html

It tells parts of the story slightly different than what we believed to know, due to the fact that last year many secret document had been released by the Germans and were allowed to be examined uncensored.

If there still were doubts, than this should make it clear that in principle EVERYBODY was completely pissed by the prospect of Germany reunificating - with the only exception of the the Germans, of course.

The article in the printed issue is much better, apparently the Foreign Office has allowed to publish some material ...

"We have beaten the Germans two times, and now they are back again!"
Maggie T.

At least they did not again declare war to Germany, though this had been considered by Thatcher and Mitterand, if only for a very short time :shifty:

Greetings,
Catfish

Interesting reading. It's always hard to get someone who has lived through a war to admit that the former enemy might not be all bad.

I wasn't. :sunny:

Öh - nations I mean. :DL And it seems to be true, no European nation wanted reunification of Germany. None. And for long time, the US and the USSR as well. I always was believing reports saying that Gorbatchev was in favour of it from much earlier on, although he still seems to have been amongst the earliest major players changing their minds.

And that the Brits until the end wanted special rights to hold sovereign British manouvers on former GDR soil after reunification, just showed how very pissed they were indeed. :D The Americans at some point started to be pragmatic and wanted to secure that Germany stays in NATO. The french conpsirated and playxed the britsh versus the Germans and the Germans versus the british. And it seems to be true and coifnirmed indeed now: the softening-up of the planned Euro currency and the earlier-than-planned introduction of it, was part of their price to accept Germany reuniting.

The article again reminds of that the Russians were angry about the eastern expansion of NATO for justified reasons, and that NATO has rightout lied to them 20 years ago. We should not forget that that way we may need to share some part of the responsibility that Putinism has grown strong in Russia. If Russian trust would not have been betrayed in following years after reunification, with all that constant moving East of NATO's borders against clear and direct promises earlier, the U-turn in Putin's thinking - who originally was a once very Europe-friendly politican who wanted to move Russia closer to Europe, and for that even was compared to Alexander who envisoned the same modernisation and pro-Western reorientation at his time - maybe would not have taken place, or would not have become so extreme. That Putin strengthens Russian central authorities again like in Soviet times, has somethign to do with his change of mind, and that he realises that Russia strands alone and that NATO cannot be trusted. At least that is how things necessarily must appear to the Russian mind. Russia moving closer to Europe, like I thought ten years ago that it would be possible, I cannot imagine anymore for the forseeable future - meaning my lifetime by that.

On the other hand, the German example shows how historic things can develope a self-dynamic so unimaginably fast and irresistible that everybody gets rolled over by how fast things are changing.

i remember much fanfare and celebration in the states when the wall fell.

I was a young kid at the time... but i do remember many people being very excited and happy about it. even my ww2 vet grandfather seemed happy to see that country moving toward a more peaceful and unified existence if memory serves.

I remember some weeks after the wall fell, our teacher had a rather large chunk of it... about the size of a brick i guess. It was passed around the room as we all got a chance to hold that little chunk of history.

Nations and people are not the same. Some constitutions seem to imply that, and democracy claims that, in a way, but it simply is wishful thinking only. Nations are monsters living a life of their own - and often without the people living in them being aware of it.

While indeed the ordinary, "private" people in most countries probably indeed meant it honest when congratulating the Germans, politically the issue was another story. Leaders and politicians obviously were anything but pleased by what was happening. After fourty years, one had arranged oneself with the status quo in Europe and Germany, and very comfoprtably so - the German division was to the advanatge and greater influence of practically all other nations in the West. Reunification thus necessarily came at the loss of such boosts in influence for the other nations - and not only for the big players like France and England, but also medium powers like Italy and small ones like Holland, Belgium, Denmark.

That's a very European attitude to have. Thankfully this way of thinking is not as prevalent on this side of the pond.

That doesn't really matter. Politics, at least American politics, is all about public perception and if the people feel a certain way about an issue then right or wrong the politicians must soon follow or risk being tossed out on their ears come the next election. Unless, of course the people can be led to believe that their government has a life of it's own and nothing they can do will change it. Maybe that dependence on public perception is what makes our leaders so "pragmatic" to use your term.

Also, if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to view the people from allied countries as being uniformly on the side of the Germans when it came to reunification. In 1989 there were still plenty of WW2 vets alive who had first hand memories of the darker side of the German psyche, and while I generally agree with the concept of not blaming the present German generations for the sins of their grandfathers, German resurgence was going to be viewed with a certain amount of trepidation and that would be reflected in their national leaders, mostly veterans of WW2 themselves.

Interesting interview with eye-witness Condoleezza Rice on the same subjct; she was an adviser to the US President Bush sen. back then:


USSR accepts that a reunified Germany can stay in the NATO:
Rice: I couldn't believe it when Gorbachev made that statement. Right after it happened, during the meeting at the White House, we advisers passed a note to President Bush that said, "Get him to say it again." So President Bush said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Let me just be sure that we both understand. You have said that under the Helsinki Accords, countries have the right to self-determination concerning your alliances." And Gorbachev said yes again.
.....That night I went to the Soviet ambassador in Washington and said that in the press conference tomorrow morning President Bush is going to say that President Gorbachev and he agree that countries have the right to self-determination in terms of their alliances. I basically told him, "Call us if you have a problem with that." And I waited all night for them to call and say "No, that's not what he said." They never did. President Bush said the line in the press conference. Gorbachev just stood there.

If you got it right, then it would mean that Western political systems work exactly the same way as they should by the ideal plan on the paper. I do not see this being the case, not in Europe and not in America (just pointing to the most obvious examples of Vietnam and Iraq 2003 where the political-economical alliance betrayed and misled the people and democratic checks-and-balances not only did not work but where actively and intentionally disengaged). On these deformations of how democratic systems on both sides of the Atlantic were meant, historically, there is little difference between America and Europe. Do not think that in Europe states also should not represent the people like they shgould in America. It'S not as if democratic rules are unique for the US only - the problem is the rules get broken here as well as there. Both continents' s political structures are corrupt and rotten to the bone. And both just manipulate the people.

As to how the ordinary people perceived reunification, I know that some of the older generations opposed it, but in egneral I think it is no incorrect statement that in general a majority in Wetsern nations did not fear a reunited Germany and indeed meant it honest when congratulating Germans. I would also dare to claim that the majority probably was the bigger, the younger the population group was that you asked for their opinion.

Strange to see younger Germansy today that are as old now as I was back then in 1989 - and that almost were not even born, or do not have any real memory of the division ever having existed. People leaving school today got born alredy 2-3 years after reunification. To them all talking abiout it is like talking about WWII is for me - hear-say. Just that my generation seems to have a better (learned) education on WWII, than their generation has about the GDR. :nope: There is growing sweet-talking about the GDR going on in Germany, and that is helped by lacking education about it. As I expressed in an other topic some days ago, I am not all enthusiastic about reunification myself, but I have totally different reasons for that: I see the link to the present state of the EU and its re-orientation, and the Euro currency, and I wonder if the way these two came about since the end of the cold war, really were an affordable price for the interests of just one people in Europe. The sick currency, the loss of the solid D-Mark, and the anti-freedom EU superstate imo are to high a price for German reunification, and all Europe is paying for it. It has become clear in recent days and weeks, that the reorientation of the EU and the early introduction of the Euro against all economic reason were the price France demanded to wave reunification through. I lived ten years in a divided city. But still I say that price probably was too high.

Hard to believe it was over 20 years ago that the wall fell. At one time, it seemed germany would be divided forever, then everything changed seemingly overnight.

The interview with Condoleeza is very interesting. Am I being overly sensitive or does anyone else sense that the interviewer has an anti-american chip on his shoulder?

well, also not all Germans were a fan of the (quick) reunification - I was one of them (was 17 at this time btw). Just like the biggest opposition party, SPD, I would have preferred a confederation, with maybe a 2-state solution or a "growing together" at a slower pace. Of course I felt happy that the rotten regime of the GDR got wiped away and the people in eastern Germany had more freedom now. However in my opinion a historic chance was missed to build a free and real democratic state with maybe a "3rd way" economic system. Reality showed that the condition of the economy in the East was far worse than most "experts" thought, so it had no chance in a totally free market, much closed down, with a result of unemployment rates in the 20 till 30 percentage. The east german economy never fullly recovered from this set-back, umemployment is still bad there, even today.

Demographic realities swept away a 2 state solution, as there were 1000's of people from the east every day who settled over to the west (who could blame them for doing so?)

Another fear was a rise of nationalism, which showed it's ugly face in progrom-like attacks in the beginning of the 90's. However at least the German government had no more plans to conquer the world ;)
We still pay extra taxes for the East, even 20 years after the reunification - another factor contributing towards the feeling of alienation towards the government which Sky mentioned. Experience has shown that once the government has some new taxes they will keep them. Funny anectode: We still pay a champagne tax (Schaumweinsteuer) on each bottle, a tax which was introduced to finance the imperial german fleet in WW1. :-?
This alienation would certainly be much less if we had more democratic participation here, a goal which many people in the east tried to reach 20 years ago - however the masses wanted quick wealth without realising that in a capitalist economy not all people are winners. This is also a reason where the nostalgy for GDR-times ("Eastalgy") comes from, which many in the East still have. "We had no freedom, but we all had jobs" - some people really wish this back :damn:

No but your European parlmentary system works a bit different than ours. Here we tend to vote for individuals whereas you Euros vote for their party.

Every government throughout history tries to manipulate the people. However you severely overestimate the degree of corruption and rottenness as least when it comes to the US. This I blame on the extensive detachment between government and population that is the norm in Europe.

I never said that older generations opposed reunification. I said they viewed it with trepidation. That's different. You can feel a bit nervous about someones choices without opposing them.

Maybe, but also the younger the population the less aware they are of the history behind it.

So then maybe Germany abrogate the treaty and quit the EU. After all what could France do if you did? Invade? :DL I doubt it.

Not only in former GDR but probably in all former Eastern Block countries. In 1999 I worked in a greek-run factory in Bulgaria. I used to talk a lot with the local personel about the communist era. Their basic argument was something as in: "Back then we had money but nothing to buy, now we can buy anything but we don't have the money to do so."
A sentiment that "world economy" strategists and spin doctors must not forget. (Yeah, as if they give a dam! :nope:)

.

They just released another analysis paper on basis of documents that before were kept secret, examining the role of sacrificing the Deutsche Mark for reunification. While what it says may not be wrong, I think it is not complete, because the priority Paris has traditionally put on trying to dominate Europe by establish a centralised European administration inside which Paris hopes to have a decisive word, is not being mentioned with even just a single word. Before reunification, there already were rifts between Bonn and Paris over currency unions and the role the EU should play, and Germany was very much opposing the visions of the French - much over fears that in past years we have learned to have had some very realistic basis indeed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...719940,00.html

Maybe it was a mistake of Germany to think in terms of feared time pressure, and due to that pressure allowing a lousy compromise with the French. As a price of reunification, I think the Euro and the current state of the EU supertstate is topo high - for all of Europe, not just Germany. Article 23 of the German constitution always allowed reunification if the German states voluntarily would agree on such a step, and if they would have done so (and the civil disobedience in the GDR was working for the destruction of a political elite that could have wanted to prevent that), in the long run there would have been little any of the Allies could have legally done against that, practically. But the diplomatic fallout maybe was feared too much.

It has been avoided at the cost of an even bigger economic and financial fallout, and a continental superstate eroding freedom more and more. And that is quite some price tag for the interests of just 78 million people in the middle of Europe. Now, almost half a billion pay the price for that.

I know; I was just trying to lighten the mood a little. I think we here in the States were more for it, being as we were a lot farther from the actual war and more willing to forgive and forget. After all it was President Wilson who tried to get the British and French to modify the reparations demands after the First War.