this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
86 points (92.2% liked)
Asklemmy
45414 readers
953 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
East Germany never fully recovered after Soviet occupation and the desolation the Soviets created. Germany has invested heavily rebuilding the east, but there is a constant brain drain, causing western migration of every German capable enough. This has left the east in a poor state they still have yet to recover from. The people in that region know this, but it doesn't change the fact they don't feel good about the lingering differences, which influences their voting behaviors heavily.
The East is in a poor state because The West illegally annexed it, threw away their welfare state, outlawed the communist party, and gave all of its industry to exploitative West German companies. Indicators of quality of life plummeted after the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall. The West also trashed East Germany's liberating policies towards women and LGBTQ+ people. East Germans that were older have nostalgia for the better times. Patronizing and ignorant liberals, rather than understand the truth in their experiences, have invented a fantasy called Ostolgie to explain this away, doing their best to pretend that this is just old people being silly rather than remembering tangibly better experiences.
This fictionalization is a necessary part of anticommunist thinking: no aspects of "the enemy" can ever be good or beneficial for anyone. All seemingly good things done by that enemy must either be attributed to a "brainwashed" population or a devious plot to appear better than they really are for propaganda purposes. It is important to recognize that these patterns of thought are not usually effectively exported and are instead intended for a domestic audience to make sure they don't actually understand and sympathize with the designated enemy.
Fuck off troll.
Literally every single German old enough to remember life in the DDR that I know (which aren't exactly few - I am German) recounts that time with terror.
In my entire life, I have not met a single person alive back then who wants to go back to the DDR. There's no notalgia, only painful memories.
The west german hitlerite invaders murdered and imprisoned everyone who opposed them
Of course you cant talk to them
Define "that time". The DDR suffered a state and economic collapse shortly before it was annexed, due to general instability of the Eastern Bloc, particularly the liberalization of the USSR (which also caused its collapse). Anyone who was a teenager would have lived through something scary.
If you don't know any East Germans who preferred life back then then you have likely only spoken to people who weren't adults for any appreciable amount of time in the DDR. Or live in a very strange bubble. I have met plenty and I'm not even German.
The fact that you're literally unaware of Ostalgie suggests you are generally unaware of anything about those who actually lived in the DDR. To have lived as an adult there for, say, 20 years, they would nedd to have been born before 1950. How many 70-90 year olds do you hang out with? How many who were kids and teenagers in 1985, i.e. now 50-60 years old? I had to make an effort to meet such people, who were younger when I did.
Wut? Germany was a singular country until the Soviet Union occupied half of it. Re-uniting the occupied territories with the rest of the country is literally the opposite of an illegal annexation.
This is a non-sequitor, it does not change whether West Germany illegally annexed East Germany, which it did. Germany included parts of what are now Poland prior to the Nazis' invasions. Would you also write off Germany illegally annexing them as a righteous revanchism?
You should learn your basic history before trying to lecture others. Germany was cut down and the remaining pieces split into regions governed by 4 countries (France, UK, USA, USSR). With the rise of the US the first 3 of course rapidly became de facto one region and the legal mumbo jumbo followed to create West Germany.
West Germany was created from this as an "independent" country, still under the thumb of the US, excluding East Germany. The USSR proposed full reintegration of Germany as a neutral country, but the US had already committed to a policy of isolation, preferring their NATO-pushing givernors of West Germany.
Regarding illegal annexation of East Germany, it was done against the consent of the people who lived there and against their own supposed legal framework.
Poland being part of germany and east germany are very different things. There is a much larger gap between poland being part of germany than east germany being part of united germany. Also, the GDR literally agreed to the unification contract so it's not an annexation.
Not based on what parent said. Their simplistic rationale was that it was somehow legal and fine because it used to be part of Germany before WWII. That applies equally to both.
Only about 35 years or so. East and West were split from the end of WWII to 1990. You seem to be exaggerating and drawing an arbitrary line.
So anyways, by your logic you think it would have been legal and good for Germany to annex the parts it lost to Poland so long as it did so before 1990? Are you sure you've thought this through?
Incorrect. There were two process options:
Carry out the creation of a new nation via negotiations between states and the draftinh of a new constitution.
Absorb states into West Germany if their populations produce a majority vote in favor.
They "chose" the latter and then didn't do the vote. They did the usual annexer thing and just fudged some bullshit to claim that the GDR government following its first Western-style (and massively Western influenced via cash and NGOs) counted since it was a ruling coalition and therefore represented the majority. Again, this is just inventing some bullshit to get what they wanted. This is somewhat like voting for a pro-Brexit party that says they want to start the process of Brexit and then, lo and behold, they are forcing an immediate and unfavorable Brexit that you would not have supported and against the law of both the EU and the UK. Only the result is that instead of breaking treaties, you no longer have a country or basically any of your laws, you are simply annexed. So you cross your fingers and hope the Western propaganda is true and your previous state's was false (spoiler: it was the opposite).
Now, generally speaking, I am not a "but the rules say otherwise!" nerd. But liberals do think of themselves this way and their propaganda tells them that everything they do against the authoritarian commies is actually for democracy and the rule of law. So when they see a basic fact like this, they either go into denial mode based on vibes, twist themselves into a pretzel (like the official legal logic), or acknowledge the reality and start to question their assumptions.
How was it an illegal annexation if the rulers of the country signed a contract that was literally about uniting with western germany. How was that illegal, it was literally done in the usual bureocratic manner it has to be done. If the population of the country did not agree to it the rulers should have done a vote or something similar but they did not.
Also the population voted twice before and twice after the decision to unite germany.
Quote: https://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/de/recherche/dossiers/fakten-meinung-mythen-die-ddr-als-projektionsflaeche/wiedervereinigung
"Im Einheitsjahr 1990 stimmte die Bevölkerung der DDR zweimal vor und zweimal nach dem Stichtag über die Wiedrevereinigung ab. Bei der einzigen freien Volkskammerwahl am 18. März 1990 erzielte die Allianz für Deutschland, das Wahlbündnis für eine möglichst schnelle Vereinigung, 48 Prozent der Stimmen, die ähnlich eingestellten ostdeutschen Liberalen weitere 5,3 Prozent. Die SPD, die ebenfalls für die Einheit, aber in einem längeren Prozess, eintrat, kam auf knapp 22 Prozent, die gegen eine Vereinigung eingestellte SED/PDS 16,4 Prozent. Der Rest der Stimmen verteilte sich auf Kleinparteien. Drei Viertel der Wähler sprachen sich also für die Einheit aus; die Regierung um Lothar de Mazière ging mit Volldampf auf Kurs Wiedervereinigung. Dieses Ergebnis wurde in den Kommunalwahlen am 6. Mai 1990 der Größenordnung nach bestätigt: Wieder wurden die Parteien der Allianz für Deutschland mit landesweit 35 Prozent am stärksten, hinzu kamen die Liberalen mit nun sogar 7,3 Prozent. Die SPD hielt ihr Ergebnis, die PDS verlor leicht. Die dritte Wahl fand am 14. Oktober 1990 statt, elf Tage nach dem Vollzug der staatlichen Wiedervereinigung. Die CDU errang teilweise zusammen mit der FDP in vier der fünf neuen Bundesländern die klare Mehrheit, die Einheitsgegner der PDS verloren leicht. Ein ähnliches Ergebnis brachte die erste gesamtdeutsche Bundestagswahl am 2. Dezember 1990.
Bei vier freien, gleichen und geheimen Abstimmungen entschied sich also jeweils die deutliche Mehrheit der Wähler für die Wiedervereinigung, wie sie von Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl und DDR-Ministerpräsident Lothar de Mazière vorangetrieben wurde.
Repräsentative Umfragen aus demselben Jahr zeigten ein ähnliches Bild. Im März 1990 gaben demnach 91 Prozent der Ostdeutschen an, „sehr erfreut“ oder zumindest“ erfreut“ über die „Herstellung der deutschen Einheit“ zu sein.[iv] Anfang August ermittelte das Meinungsforschungsinstituts Forsa repräsentativ, dass 88 Prozent der DDR-Bevölkerung für den Zusammenschluss der beiden deutschen Staaten seien (und 71 Prozent der Bewohner der bisherigen Bundesrepublik).[v]
Allerdings ergaben zugleich verschiedene Erhebungen, dass das Tempo der Vereinigung als zu hoch angesehen wurde. Das Zentralinstitut für Jugendforschung der DDR ermittelte zum Beispiel in der zweiten Junihälfte 1990, dass zwar 84 Prozent für die Vereinigung seien, aber 55 Prozent den Vorgang zu schnell fänden.[vi]"
I just explained how. You can review the articles governing West Germany to verify this if you'd like. Are you being obtuse or did you just not read what I said?
I will ignore everything else you said until you clarify.
Edit: actually I will reply quickly to the rest because it is just quotes from one article doing the bullshitting I mentioned. They play fast and loose right off the bat, saying the peolle voted four times for reunification, twice before and twixe after. Let's look at their examples.
The one I alreasy described to you and that you are obtusely avoiding thinking about: the vote for members of their analog of a parliament. This is not a plebiscite for joining West Germany.
The exact same thing but for local elections.
The exact same thing but for newly entering state elections.
The exact same thing but for the whole of Germany.
Do you have a source for what the elections were because I provided one.
Also in representative surveys after the unification 90% of east germans were happy about it, which indicates that it was in favor of the east german population. Source: the article above
I think your point doesn't really have power if there is no proof of there not being the public votes.
I will reply to you as soon as you have sources for your claims
The one you provided supports what I said. You do not seem to be understanding what I am saying. Please ask for clarification if you are having trouble understanding.
And? Doesn't make it legal.
I think it does because liberals are all about feigning belief in rules and the rule of law. Right until they don't.
What sources would you even need? Do you know how to talk to other people and ask them questions when you want to know something?
My source said that there were four equal elections in which the population voted in favor of the unification, although 55 percent thought it happened to fast, 80 percent were in favor.
I need sources because we are talking about facts in history that you claim to be false
Your source said that and then proceedes to list four votes of the type I had already described. They voted for parties for general elections. For national elections in the GDR, for local elections in the GDR, for new state elections, and then federal elections with everyone in the FRG as well (which makes even less sense but I avoided quibbling). I already explained this to you two comments ago when I went through how the bullshitting worked: the law called for plebiscite but they instead just claim the results of normal elections for parties counts instead.
You have also been bamboozled by this illogic. I said it was illegal, thos source clsims it was popular and there was a hand-wavy proxy vote, and they successfully convinced you to not question the legality.
Polling in the GDR was very poor and you should not trust any of the polls. Many of the attempts at polling showed supermajority rejection of reunification and you shouldn't trust those, either. Funny enough, this is actually one of the practical benefits to having a plebiscite on these kinds of questions: you don't have to guess.
Again, for what topica do you need sources? Which things can you not look up on your own and would prefer me to grab for you? Your source was just the things I was already saying happened, it did not add anything to the conversation, though people with Reddit brain always get excited by a link and some quotes.
You can review Article 29 (the one used to absorb the GDR) here. From this translation:
Though again, you:
have
not
told
me
what
sources
you
need.
Di you understand now?
Can you please point out where in my source it states that it was the type of election you say it is because to me it seems to say they made public votes about the unification. Maybe there is something lost in translation as I am reading the german version and you might not be or something else.
This is also the part I need a source for: That the elections were made out to be a vote about the unification process.
The Article you stated from the GG just states what we already agreed on: That there was a vote to be held and if the vote turns out not in favor it will not happen.
If you were interested you could read it yourself and look at the dates and what they are referring to with their proper nouns. Every election they listed was a general election of parties / candidates, not a plebiscite on reuniting.
"Bei der einzigen freien Volkskammerwahl am 18. März 1990 erzielte die Allianz für Deutschland, das Wahlbündnis für eine möglichst schnelle Vereinigung, 48 Prozent der Stimmen"
Do you know what Allianz fuer Deutschland was? It was a coalition of parties. When they refer to them getting 48% of votea, they are referring to their party coalition getting those votes. Liberals go on and on about this election, they even xall it the first free election in the GDR since the Nazis took over.
"Dieses Ergebnis wurde in den Kommunalwahlen am 6. Mai 1990 der Größenordnung nach bestätigt: Wieder wurden die Parteien der Allianz für Deutschland mit landesweit 35 Prozent am stärksten, hinzu kamen die Liberalen mit nun sogar 7,3 Prozent."
This is the local elections in the GDR a little later. Again they are referring to political parties receiving votes.
"Die dritte Wahl fand am 14. Oktober 1990 statt, elf Tage nach dem Vollzug der staatlichen Wiedervereinigung. Die CDU errang teilweise zusammen mit der FDP in vier der fünf neuen Bundesländern die klare Mehrheit, die Einheitsgegner der PDS verloren leicht. Ein ähnliches Ergebnis brachte die erste gesamtdeutsche Bundestagswahl am 2. Dezember 1990."
This is referring to elections after reunification day. This time at the state level and national. Again they refer to parties getting percentages of votes: CDU, FDP.
I can read German.
Your own source is saying exactly that. Its examples are all general elections for party representation in legislative bodies. Your own source calls this, "Im Einheitsjahr 1990 stimmte die Bevölkerung der DDR zweimal vor und zweimal nach dem Stichtag über die Wiedrevereinigung ab." For those who do not speak German, this is saying, more or less, "in Unification Year 1990 the citizens of the GDR voted twice before and twice after the reunification deadline". It says they voted for unificatikn four times but every example is a general election of parties.
No vote on the decision was held. None. Article 29 is quite cleae that the people must vote explicitly on the decision to join. It even says there cannot be more than 2 choices presented on the ballot.
From what I have read up now the unification was not done under article 29 but with a seperate contract that the elected parties from the DDR and the BRD signed to unite the parts of germany. I am not sure if this was against the article 29 but I can't find any information if it was or wasn't.
The contract didn't include anything about voting about it.
The first reunifucation document cites article 23, indicating that the GDR would enter as states (Laender) adhering to the FRG constitution, which was subject to article 29. The only other option for reunification provided for in the FRG constitution was a negotiated rewrite of the constitution, itself requiring a plebiscite, which they did not do. The "contract" does not mention article 29, but it is subject to the only two provisions in the FRG constitution for the reunification (accession if states via plebiscite and negotiated rewrite of the constitution, also requiring a plebiscite).
After the fact, liberals began coming up with explanations for why this blatantly illegal "contract" was actually fine, including things like the sourced document conflating general elections of parties with a plebiscite.
So who are you accusing of doing the wrong thing: The government of the GDR or the FRG Government, because is it still illegal annexation if the country being annexed signs a legally binding contract that it will become part of germany without a plebiscite.
Maybe it went against the GG of the FDR but then it wouldn't really be an illegal annexation but a different crime if it wasn't against the laws of the GDR or our definitions of annexation might differ.
I'm saying the FRG broke its own laws to annex the DDR. I haven't said that this is inherently "the wrong thing", I note it being illegal because liberals pretend to care about such things.
There is no provision for this in the FRG's provisional constitution at the time. I linked to it and explained the two options already.