Not even an icy welcome for German reunification

[Sailor Steve]

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

EVERYBODY was completely pissed by the prospect of Germany reunificating - with the only exception of the the Germans, of course.

I wasn't.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I wasn't.

Öh - nations I mean. 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. 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.

[GoldenRivet]

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.

[Skybird]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

While indeed the ordinary, "private" people in most countries probably indeed meant it honest when congratulating the Germans, politically the issue was another story.

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.

[Dan D]

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.

[Skybird]

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. 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.

[Bilge_Rat]

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?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Öh - nations I mean.

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.