Smarter German reunification

[freivolk]

The matter of drafting a constitution is usually "bigger" and more important than what a parliament can decide on its own and needs imput from people besides just elected officials, which is why you usually get seperate constitutional assemblies. Look at the current process in Chile for an example of that.

Something like Chile, I assume, is a rather new development. We have before 1949 two attempts for a german constitution: Frankfurt 1848 and Weimar 1919! In both cases a constitutional assembly was elected, but this assembly acted also as national parlament, which instalt a goverment, made laws, etc. etc..
I´m quite sure, that this was what the creators of Grundgeset had in mind for Art. 146GG.

 

[FesteringSpore]

The Colonel was conversely surprised by the violence and speed of their training.

But was that training good tho

 

[SlideAway]

In the months following the fall of the Wall, most expected any reunification to gradual. The SPD in the west and many of Kohl's intraparty rivals in the CDU did not favor a rapid or complete reunification. After the surge of East Germans into West Germany, many - including Oscar Lafontaine and Lothar Spath (who had nearly unseated Kohl in the prior year) - called for reimposing controls on migration from the east. And in the East German elections, the SPD and their allies in the east also favored a new constitution.

There were several reasons this didn't happen. For one, Kohl's determination for a rapid reunification, something that was also driven by fear that Gorbachev would fall and there was only a narrow window for pursuing unity. But another important factor was that the East German essentially collapsed in the months following the fall of the Wall and East Germans themselves voted in a CDU government by a wide margin on an explicit platform of rapid reunification. As was the case prior to 1961, the division of Berlin didn't help, both being an open access point into the west and a situation that would bedevil any kind of normalization.

If you want a more gradual or different reunification, an SPD government or a union government led by Spath could do it. You'd also need them to be willing to come to some sort of arrangement over Berlin.

The biggest substantive difference would be not having a 1:1 currency exchange. This was done for understandable political reasons, but it supercharged East Germany's deindustrialization and made it uncompetitive on a wage basis. It would have been better to retain border and currency controls for an interim period and retaining an East German mark for some time. Or doing something other than a 1:1 exchange. I'm not an economist so will leave it to others to speculate on what might have been possible.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

But was that training good tho

As far as it went. They seem to have been trained to attack with speed, but little about defense & force preservation. The artillery regiment like the division it was part of would be good for about three days of attacking, then ? The plans this Colonel, & others in the US Army & Bundswehr saw were for rapidly assaulting with a nuclear strike at the start. No plans for what they would do if the NATO did anything other than defend in place. Their plan in case of a counter attack was to just keep attacking. Neither was there any plan or training for if nuclear weapons were not used.

Since I'd not seen these documents or detailed descrip[tions the summaries I was given seemed bizarre. & thats how the people who did read them reacted.

 

[Drizzt]

After the surge of East Germans into West Germany, many - including Oscar Lafontaine and Lothar Spath (who had nearly unseated Kohl in the prior year) - called for reimposing controls on migration from the east.
It would have been better to retain border and currency controls for an interim period and retaining an East German mark for some time. Or doing something other than a 1:1 exchange. I'm not an economist so will leave it to others to speculate on what might have been possible.

And that's really the crux of the matter: If reunification hadn't happened fast any East German with marketable skills would have headed for the West. Millions of them. Disproportionatly drawn from those who were actually doing real work. And no there was no stopping it. For two reasons:
1. Unlike the 2015 refugees, the East Germans are constitutionally considered German citizens. Legally they were the same as any hypothetical West German who was kidnapped by the Stasi and managed to escape. The gouvernments hands were tied.
2. Assuming someone like Lafontaine got in power and decided to try and stop them anyway regardless of the Constitution: How? Nothing short of shoot to kill orders would have. No one in the West German military would have obeyed those orders. Any Chancellor trying to give them would probably have been arrested.

This is why a non-hard-Left Social Democratic gouvernment might have tried to bail out East Germany and go for a gradual unification instead of a fast one, but the attempt would have blown up in their face. As much as unreconstucted Leftists might pretend otherwise, the gouverment of East Germany had no legitimacy with the people actually living in it beyond the de-facto Aristocracy or Stasi informants anymore. "Either the West-Mark comes to us, or we will go where it is" was the order of the day.

 

[Deleted member 90563]

Were the Wessis too unfair to the Ossis?

Maybe, but over 30 years later, it's still funny.

 

[rfmcdonald]

And that's really the crux of the matter: If reunification hadn't happened fast any East German with marketable skills would have headed for the West. Millions of them. Disproportionatly drawn from those who were actually doing real work. And no there was no stopping it. For two reasons:
1. Unlike the 2015 refugees, the East Germans are constitutionally considered German citizens. Legally they were the same as any hypothetical West German who was kidnapped by the Stasi and managed to escape. The gouvernments hands were tied.
2. Assuming someone like Lafontaine got in power and decided to try and stop them anyway regardless of the Constitution: How? Nothing short of shoot to kill orders would have. No one in the West German military would have obeyed those orders. Any Chancellor trying to give them would probably have been arrested.

This is why a non-hard-Left Social Democratic gouvernment might have tried to bail out East Germany and go for a gradual unification instead of a fast one, but the attempt would have blown up in their face. As much as unreconstucted Leftists might pretend otherwise, the gouverment of East Germany had no legitimacy with the people actually living in it beyond the de-facto Aristocracy or Stasi informants anymore. "Either the West-Mark comes to us, or we will go where it is" was the order of the day.

If you want a viable slower reunification, I think you would need a POD long before 1989. You would need to have an East Germany that was more of a success, with a more prosperous economy and a freer society. A Slovenia or Yugoslavia of the Soviet bloc? The problem with that idea is that you would need a social-economic-political model that would not be liberal-democratic but that would be competitive with West Germany, at least.

 

[DougM]

To get a longer reunification you need East Germany to NOT collapse.

 

[BELFAST]

I think it is in general a bad bad bad idea to replace constitutions unless absolutely necessary. A constitution is the basic law of the land op upon which all other laws depend. And to replace it wholesale indicates that it is law like any other and that the politicians can mess around with it like they do other laws so that the imidiate needs yo whomever is either in favor or the privlaged group can best benefit.
Thus you have no heritage of Stan ability and you have set the precedent that if you dont like the constitution you can pitch it out and replace it any time you like. This means that it is utterly impossible to put perminate restriction or a government or to put protect citizens as even the protections in the constitution can simply be tossed out the window.
This is a HORRIBLE example to set. And good luck if you don’t think it will be abused. A constitution is supposed to be solid and perman and hard to change so that it evolves slowly and not due to a modern trend.

And the idea of pitching it just to be inclusive of the DDR is absurd. The whole point of reunification was to bring the East into the west. As basicly the west had “won” the Cold War. I think if you tell the west that they have to “compromise “ with the East there is going be hell to pay and a lot of West German politicians will be out on there ear. And while I am not an expert on West German law I would not be at all surprised if whomever is push for this form of unification doesn’t get arrested for treason,

The east German government was absolutely hated by everyone including its own citizens and rightly so. To give it any legitimacy by giving it eq status and thus form a true merger is probably unthinkable for most in the west at the time. And even most in the East just wanted the East German government to be gone. Somehow we seam to lose track now of day of just how bad the East German government was and how hated it was. Their was a reason it had to put up a wall to keep its citizens in.

Imagine if North Korea was to announce that they wanted to reunify with South Korea but they expected the South Korean government to be devolved and a committee of both North and South Koreans would write a new constitution and creat a new government using “the best of both governments “ . It would go over like a lead balloon. And rightly so.

In the case of Germany what legal gaurentees does the west have that this Jew government with its new constitution will be what West Germany was and held dear vs what the power players in the East wanted. Or that power players in the west or both slides for that smatter wouldnt abuse the system and get laws passed that benefit them vs the average Joe? This is why “drafting a new constitution “ is so damn dangerous because if you are giving people the write to pitch the existing one out and replace it then arguably anything goes. You want to eliminate free speech, or voting? You can. You want to give votes out based on it tests scores or Twitter followers or the size of you bank account.. now is the time.

So you have a huge set of issues, First of is the precedent that you can just write a new constitution when it is convenient, second it legitimizes the East German government and third it potentially opens the door to huge abuse.
So this is both a horrible idea and frankly almost impossible to have happen as the average citizen in West Germany would be up in arms.

A constitution that is easy to change sounds like the British on where parliament law and the constitution are the same and can be changed whenever parliament wants.

 

[BELFAST]

In the months following the fall of the Wall, most expected any reunification to gradual. The SPD in the west and many of Kohl's intraparty rivals in the CDU did not favor a rapid or complete reunification. After the surge of East Germans into West Germany, many - including Oscar Lafontaine and Lothar Spath (who had nearly unseated Kohl in the prior year) - called for reimposing controls on migration from the east. And in the East German elections, the SPD and their allies in the east also favored a new constitution.

There were several reasons this didn't happen. For one, Kohl's determination for a rapid reunification, something that was also driven by fear that Gorbachev would fall and there was only a narrow window for pursuing unity. But another important factor was that the East German essentially collapsed in the months following the fall of the Wall and East Germans themselves voted in a CDU government by a wide margin on an explicit platform of rapid reunification. As was the case prior to 1961, the division of Berlin didn't help, both being an open access point into the west and a situation that would bedevil any kind of normalization.

If you want a more gradual or different reunification, an SPD government or a union government led by Spath could do it. You'd also need them to be willing to come to some sort of arrangement over Berlin.

The biggest substantive difference would be not having a 1:1 currency exchange. This was done for understandable political reasons, but it supercharged East Germany's deindustrialization and made it uncompetitive on a wage basis. It would have been better to retain border and currency controls for an interim period and retaining an East German mark for some time. Or doing something other than a 1:1 exchange. I'm not an economist so will leave it to others to speculate on what might have been possible.

It was one for one exchange but there were limits on how much could be exchanged and when. People with a lot of savings had to wait a long time to convert all their savings to DM.

 

[freivolk]

Were the Wessis too unfair to the Ossis?

View attachment 712411

Maybe, but over 30 years later, it's still funny.

Its rather arrogant. Leftwing, west-german bourgoise making fun about the east-german people, which don´t want to life any longer in "socialist paradies".

 

[Deleted member 90563]

Its rather arrogant. Leftwing, west-german bourgoise making fun about the east-german people, which don´t want to life any longer in "socialist paradies".

If that's what you want to believe, but actually it's making fun of attitudes prevalent in West Germany at the time.
Although, judging by my cousins - who both had mullets, although only one had a 'tache -, they were far more interested in being introduced to smoking weed (of which they really had no idea what it looked like) and sampling hard-core porno films.

 

[freivolk]

If that's what you want to believe, but actually it's making fun of attitudes prevalent in West Germany at the time.

Given Otto Schily´s reaction to the question, why the SPD lost the Volkskammer-election, I think my explanation has some merits.

 

[Deleted member 90563]

Given Otto Schily´s reaction to the question, why the SPD lost the Volkskammer-election, I think my explanation has some merits.

He had nothing whatsoever to do with the satirical magazine Titanic, so posting that does nothing to support your post.
It does however support what I wrote in the post you quoted.

 

[freivolk]

He had nothing whatsoever to do with the satirical magazine Titanic, so posting that does nothing to support your post.
It does however support what I wrote in the post you quoted.

My post shows an certain attidute, which existed in the west german left at this time.
And in your post is a cover of a leftleaning satire-magazine, which makes fun about an east-german woman. If the cover wants to make fun about west german attidute, thenit is reaaaaaly subtil,especialy for the Titanic.

 

[Deleted member 90563]

My post shows an certain attidute, which existed in the west german left at this time.
And in your post is a cover of a leftleaning satire-magazine, which makes fun about an east-german woman. If the cover wants to make fun about west german attidute, thenit is reaaaaaly subtil,especialy for the Titanic.

Titanic readers - which I assume you weren't - knew how it was meant, and satire has always caused offense for many reasons, sometimes even to those on the left, though usually not. And I honestly don't care if you disagree with that.

 

[ECavalier]

this Jew government

Some very unfortunate auto-correction in there but I agree with what you meant.

 

[DougM]

Some very unfortunate auto-correction in there but I agree with what you meant.

Ok, I just went back and edited it to fix the typo….
I an not fond of the Autocorrect on iPads they just replace the word with their best guess and if you don’t notice it… oh well
And frankly my electronic spell checker i had in School back in the 80s did a better job and guessing the correct word from the mangled attempt at spelling in then my IPad does.

Although that is an ironic typo given the topic.

I do apologize to anyone that may have been offended. I have a bit of an issue with spelling and unfortunately the spell check on my IPad corrected New that way.

 

[MickCz]

A constitution that is easy to change sounds like the British on where parliament law and the constitution are the same and can be changed whenever parliament wants.

Not really so easy to change the British constitution...after all it took a Referendum to make British law supreme again.

 

[BELFAST]

Not really so easy to change the British constitution...after all it took a Referendum to make British law supreme again.

all you need is a majority in parliament in the UK.