From: planius@h112.desy.de (Peter Lanius)
Subject: Re: Germany's Power Play in Europe
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany.
	<1992Sep9.165305.20525@compu.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:17:39 GMT


Fred Rump from home writes:

>>Most non-germans I've spoken to also feel that it was an annexation. So you
>>should be aware of your bias, because you are german (-- I guess at least).

>Peter,
>You must run into a strange set of acquaintances to find they mostly agree that 
>an annexation took place. I've yet to meet one of their compatriots. Most 
>people simply know the wall that separated one country was finally toppled. 
>That may be simplistic but that is what people saw.

>A country artificially divided was put back together again at great pain to 
>both parts. It had to happen because all the people living on one side of the 
>fence wanted to go to the other side. It was still easier to tear the fence 
>down.

>fred

I'm not going to argument about different groups of people, the statistical
significance of a 'poll' or whatever thelike. O.k., it was a pretty stupid
idea to use this as an argument.

Nevertheless, your view seems really too simplistic to me and you avoid to 
refer to the arguments I gave in my last posting. It is not just toppling 
the wall, the question is what happened after the wall was gone.
Germany was artificially divided and was put back together again, *but*
after 44 years. And these 44 years make the difference, I mean, this is
almost one generation. 

You have to take care of the specifics of the country and a country is made
up of a specific population, thus it shouldn't be suprising that the people
developed their own habits during 44 years of a regime that was so different
from what used to be in Germany before the WWII. I guess you would not
mind to call the russian takeover of East-Germany an annexation. 
If you take a closer look at what happens today in the other east-european
countries you will recognize that every country goes a slightly different
way. They are forced by economics to take measures that are common to
all these countries, but they all choose a way of their own.

West-Germans tend to have the prejudice that everything what happened in these
44 years in the GDR was bad or at least worthless. This is not by definition
or so, it seems to me that it is simply ignorance or lack of true experience
with the GDR-system. And of course what you have been taught in school. The
same should be true vice-versa, but it isn't. Simply since West-Germany always
had a higher standard of living etc. The percentage of East-Germans that
used to watch western TV is incomparable higher than vice-versa. You see this
effect best if you look what happened in '89/90. Almost all East-Germans were
sure that they will now enter the paradise. But the official propaganda about
West Germany in the GDR was exactly the opposite: unemployment, crime, poverty,
drugs etc. Noone really believed this, it was propaganda. If you turn things
around, the West-Germans are still suprised that you could study in the GDR
without being a member of the Communist Party. I'm overdoing it a little bit 
here, just to give you an idea of the mismatch. My personal expirience is,
that living in both systems as I did/do sharpens your view for such things.

The GDR had a highly developed educational system that lacked the freedom of
choice in many places, but it was more efficient than the current system in 
Germany. Here was the chance to learn from the expirience the GDR had with
receiving the A-level within 12 years and not 13 as it was/is in Germany.
The same holds for the average time a students needs to receive a university
degree, it used to be much shorter in the GDR, since people were forced to
finish after 4 or 5 years, depending on the subject.

My point is, that you have to take a closer look on what happened after the
wall went down in '89. There are too many examples of at least ingnorance 
and selfishness in the way the unification of the two countries took place
to call this a fusion or whatever. Just another example. There have been
two choices to unit the two parts. One article of the german constitution
opened the possibilty for 'Laender' to join the FRG, it is to become a part
of the current system as it is. This is the way that was choosen. The other
possibility was another article of the constitution which was foreseen for
the reunification when the 'Grundgesetz' was developed in 1949 (at least I
remember it this way, the others will correct me if I'm wrong). It stated
that a new constitution will be developed and approved by the people as an
expression of their free will and this will then replace the 'Grundgesetz'
and finally fullfill the aim of German reunification; or something like that. 
And there were other chances to make the reunification process more democratic
than it actually was. 

That's enough for today,
Peter

P.S. I haven't even mentioned how the problem of private estate was handled
     in the unification treaty...