5 ms·

> Offered little support Support peaked at 1/3rd of GDP. At the time, there were a lot of critics (domestic and foreign) of how expensive Kohl's vision of reb

by _jal 6y ago

> Offered little support Support peaked at 1/3rd of GDP. At the time, there were a lot of critics (domestic and foreign) of how expensive Kohl's vision of rebuilding the East was. I'm not saying: the East has caught up, it was handled perfectly, there aren't still problems, there aren't ugly political problems. I am saying you have a very weirdly biased view of what happened, and maybe should consider not single-sourcing your history to tee vee shows, or at least recognize the limits of doing so.

inglor_cz 6y ago
One of the obvious problems is that Ossis are still massively underrepresented in the German elite. Only a tiny proportion of big business owners are Eastern, the proportion of Easterners among university professors or judges is smaller than expected, even in the new Länder, the same applies in culture. This cannot really be compensated by money, especially if that money flows back into Western corporations (such as construction companies that build infrastructure).
- yborg 6y ago
  The Chancellor of Germany for the last 15 years is an East German.
  - corin_ 6y ago
    That feels a little bit like pointing at Obama to prove there's no racism in the US.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Among the "Pack" (East German equivalent of "deplorables"), she is considered a traitor. Look at this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnnjry_v-hY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnnjry_v-hY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeQnHaeZyHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeQnHaeZyHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3hLkebbOms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3hLkebbOms
rektide 6y ago
Support was offered, on West Germany's terms. As per wikipedia, > Despite these problems, the process of unification moved ahead, albeit slowly. The Treuhand, staffed almost entirely by Germans from the west, became the virtual government of eastern Germany. I agree, I would like to have a better background on this. The West did face severe difficulties & extreme extreme burdens of it's own in trying to support & integrate. But it continually feels to me like the image of this being a take-over are not unfounded. Trying to figure out a way to sustain & support the economy, to allow space for a more graceful self-rule, under which terms transition could be better, more slowly explored would have been immensely interesting. Instead, we got a much fairer, nicer version of what was just starting to happen somewhat East of Germany, in the wake of the fall of the USSR ten months three weeks earlier: a sell off, a economic re-dividing up of spoils, a commercialization of a nation. There were huge huge challenges, and it's not as simple at all as saying capitalism is at fault here. This wasn't even necessarily predatory. The world continues to have faith above all in the GDP, in macro-economics. The drive to push GDP up, by all means, quickly, or else (given the economic troubles faced) is a very real & valid survival reflex; quite understandable. It's hard to imagine what alternatives there were, especially given the already fairly dire economic state of East Germany/the German Democratic Republic at the time, but I don't think it is a "very weirdly biased view" at all that I nor wikipedia present: that the GDR was coerced into change, rapidly, by external forces, with little respect to self-determinism & little chance given for the people to figure out a way forward to try to support each other, in a less ambitiously bottom-line oriented manner. I'm a little more aware of the contemporary situation, where there is an alarming rise of far-right angry-popularism. From the same sort of economically-left-behind folks who feel left out of modern society. And while I think their reaction is malformed, I can sympathize with their anger and recognize the common problems faced by "rural America" and much of East Germany. Anyhow, you've rather told me I'm full of shit, and I'd like rather much if you could find something beyond criticism to offer to this conversation. Do you have any materials or suggestions for the readers here?

by _jal 6y ago

inglor_cz 6y ago

One of the obvious problems is that Ossis are still massively underrepresented in the German elite. Only a tiny proportion of big business owners are Eastern, the proportion of Easterners among university professors or judges is smaller than expected, even in the new Länder, the same applies in culture. This cannot really be compensated by money, especially if that money flows back into Western corporations (such as construction companies that build infrastructure).

yborg 6y ago
The Chancellor of Germany for the last 15 years is an East German.
- corin_ 6y ago
  That feels a little bit like pointing at Obama to prove there's no racism in the US.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Among the "Pack" (East German equivalent of "deplorables"), she is considered a traitor. Look at this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnnjry_v-hY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnnjry_v-hY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeQnHaeZyHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeQnHaeZyHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3hLkebbOms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3hLkebbOms

rektide 6y ago

Support was offered, on West Germany's terms. As per wikipedia, > Despite these problems, the process of unification moved ahead, albeit slowly. The Treuhand, staffed almost entirely by Germans from the west, became the virtual government of eastern Germany. I agree, I would like to have a better background on this. The West did face severe difficulties & extreme extreme burdens of it's own in trying to support & integrate. But it continually feels to me like the image of this being a take-over are not unfounded. Trying to figure out a way to sustain & support the economy, to allow space for a more graceful self-rule, under which terms transition could be better, more slowly explored would have been immensely interesting. Instead, we got a much fairer, nicer version of what was just starting to happen somewhat East of Germany, in the wake of the fall of the USSR ten months three weeks earlier: a sell off, a economic re-dividing up of spoils, a commercialization of a nation. There were huge huge challenges, and it's not as simple at all as saying capitalism is at fault here. This wasn't even necessarily predatory. The world continues to have faith above all in the GDP, in macro-economics. The drive to push GDP up, by all means, quickly, or else (given the economic troubles faced) is a very real & valid survival reflex; quite understandable. It's hard to imagine what alternatives there were, especially given the already fairly dire economic state of East Germany/the German Democratic Republic at the time, but I don't think it is a "very weirdly biased view" at all that I nor wikipedia present: that the GDR was coerced into change, rapidly, by external forces, with little respect to self-determinism & little chance given for the people to figure out a way forward to try to support each other, in a less ambitiously bottom-line oriented manner. I'm a little more aware of the contemporary situation, where there is an alarming rise of far-right angry-popularism. From the same sort of economically-left-behind folks who feel left out of modern society. And while I think their reaction is malformed, I can sympathize with their anger and recognize the common problems faced by "rural America" and much of East Germany. Anyhow, you've rather told me I'm full of shit, and I'd like rather much if you could find something beyond criticism to offer to this conversation. Do you have any materials or suggestions for the readers here?