History Hub permalink
Berlin Wall: 50th Anniversary
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the sealing off of West Berlin by East Germany in 1961.
People woke up on Sunday 13 August to suddenly find that they could no longer cross from east to west or vice versa. Many families were thus torn apart and come the Monday morning many workers could no longer travel to their place of work and were thus out of a job.
Does anyone have any stories or anecdotes relating to the history of the Berlin Wall? -
Message 2
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
I'm afraid as someone who lost over 60 members of his father's family in the Holocaust, as far as I'm concerned they should have built the wall a mile high, the length of the country and totally indestructible.
-
Message 3
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
I'm afraid as someone who lost over 60 members of his father's family in the Holocaust, as far as I'm concerned they should have built the wall a mile high, the length of the country and totally indestructible. What?
It's like saying, for someone who does not like to hang, they should build a giant pot, where this someone could be fried alive....
Actually, on second thought, it's even more dumb than that... -
Message 4
Posted by alanpatten (U1866183) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
It's my birthday today, so I well remember the day the wall went up. I can recall finding it astounding. The East German authorities claimed it was to keep the West Germans out, but in reality it was built to stop the economic drain of East Germans to the west.
I have German friends, who, when visiting relatives in the east, were not allowed to travel in a direct line (south east), but had to drive to Berlin to cross into East Germany, then drive a long way South to visit their relatives. I belive they were even charged taxes on the goods that were unobtainable in the same quality or quantity in the east.
What a show case for communism!
Regards...............Alan -
Message 5
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
Actually today was the anniversary of the start of the building of the wall and it took some time to finish. There was an excellent talk at The National Archives, Kew, during the week and you might like to check their website this coming week.
-
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
Some interesting replies there folks - thanks.
A rather strange post (Message 2) - and to add to suvorovets' valid comment - one wonders if 13 years earlier (when the previous blockade was attempted in 1948) that Attlee, Truman and Auriol should have then joined with Stalin in blockading the civilians of West Berlin rather than mounting the Airlift as they did. The mind boggles.
As dmatt47 has rightly pointed out the Wall itself, of course, was not erected overnight but on that first morning initially comprised barbed-wire, barricades, brieze-blocks and soldiers and police with guns and guard-dogs etc.
Over the years there were various ingenious (successful and unsuccessful) escape attempts involving tunnels, hot-air balloons, home-made gliders and even a sawn-off car which was made so low in profile that it was driven strait under the barrier at Checkpoint Charlie.
As Alan suggests, the decision to build the Wall marked a symbolic defeat for Communism from which it would never recover. And 28 years later the Wall would come crashing down.
P.S. Happy Birthday Alan! -
Message 7
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
It's like saying, for someone who does not like to hang, they should build a giant pot, where this someone could be fried alive....
Far too obtuse for me I'm afraid, perhaps you'd explain it to me sometime.
My point was that the longer Germany was divided, the safer the world would be.
.......unless you want to pretend that history hasn't happened of course. -
Message 8
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
I don't agree. What's more, while you are so intent on watching Germany, you are not aware of what is creeping up on you from somewhere else!
-
Message 9
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Far too obtuse for me I'm afraid, perhaps you'd explain it to me sometime.
My point was that the longer Germany was divided, the safer the world would be. I'm afraid that pinning the wars on the fact that Germany did not have a wall is - how should I put it - well, okay, pretty obtuse. -
Message 10
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
wiseraphaet,
quote-- My point is that the longer Germany was divided, the safer the world would be.
You sure got that right,
Anyone around during the 30s, and was aware of the situation in Europe at that time, and was a citizen of one of the countries troubled by Germany would surly feel less safe, and the, 'Here we go again', would certainly come to mind.
Did to me anyway. -
Message 11
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Re. Berlin Wall.
Of course it was the unification of Germany that was the cause for many to fear the future. -
Message 12
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
a citizen of one of the countries troubled by Germany would surly feel less safe, and the, 'Here we go again', would certainly come to mind.
Did to me anyway. Does not mean
You sure got that right ...with all due respect. That's just an opinion. And a shallow one at that, in my opinion. -
Message 13
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
suvrovetz...why was that a shallow opinion?
Doesn't history, personal experience, retrospective knowledge and a whole host of other things tell you it is anything but shallow?
...or do you go around in total denial. -
Message 14
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Doesn't history, personal experience, retrospective knowledge and a whole host of other things tell you it is anything but shallow? As far as I'm concerned you have prerogative neither over history, nor personal experience, nor retrospective knowledge.
-
Message 15
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Of course I don't...apart from the retrospective knowledge.
But I do realise that the point of studying history is to learn from it.
If you've been bitten twice, you don't stick your hand out a third time. -
Message 16
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
But I do realise that the point of studying history is to learn from it.
If you've been bitten twice, you don't stick your hand out a third time. Well, if the first and the second world wars are principally indistinguishable to you, I say, you learned nothing. -
Message 17
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Didn't say that....but we and the rest of Europe were badly bitten in both by the same dog....don't you think that dog should be shackled against it happening again?
-
Message 18
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
It was Austria who began WWI and who inflicted both Hitler and Arnold Schwarzenegger on the world. I'd be more worried about them than Germany.
-
Message 19
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
we and the rest of Europe were badly bitten in both by the same dog....don't you think that dog should be shackled against it happening again? For some reason, this does not strike me as an example of sound retrospective knowledge.
-
Message 20
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
wiseraphael.
There are, were, European countries who would have been pleased if Germany had been permanently divided. Their Opinion formed by former Facts. -
Message 21
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Absolutely right rhmney...in fact every east european country and most western would agree.
And their opinions formed by former facts, i.e. experience and knowledge. -
Message 22
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
The eastern europeans have little to love the Germans for, and as I recall the USSR was not keen on the re-unification back in the 80's.
But as one Russian Joked to me recently, "German wanted Europe. Now they find they can't afford it!" -
Message 23
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
The eastern europeans have little to love the Germans for, and as I recall the USSR was not keen on the re-unification back in the 80's. The not so settled equaling “eastern Europeans” to USSR is quite ironic. Did you ever pose a question, such as, were “eastern Europeans” that keen on being occupied by the Soviet Army, for example?
-
Message 24
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Billygoatgruff,
"German wanted Europe. Now they find they can't afford it", really cute,
Now much of Europe a 'Basket Case', and Germany have more orders for their engineering products are unable to keep up with the demand, according to the German news. Quality Sells. -
Message 25
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Reunification of Germany. I have the impression that many of the contributors haven't read history past and present. I don't not always agree with Suvorovetz, but in this case...Wonder what a Nordmann or a Thomas thinks about all this "loose" reasoning?
Kind regards, Paul. -
Message 26
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Anyone around during the 30s, and was aware of the situation in Europe at that time, and was a citizen of one of the countries troubled by Germany would surly feel less safe, and the, 'Here we go again', would certainly come to mind.
The former US president John F Kennedy was around in the 1930s. And 2 years after the building of the Wall he visited Berlin in 1963. He said - “All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’”. But maybe instead he should have turned to Willy Brandt the Mayor of West Berlin and snarled “Here we go again!” and signed a bill ordering US tax-payers to fund the minefields and the watchtowers etc.
And former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher was around in the 1930s. When the GDR dismantled the Wall in 1989 she said – “I think it is a great day for freedom. I watched the scenes on television last night and again this morning because I felt one ought not only hear about them but see them because you see the joy on people's faces and you see what freedom means to them; it makes you realise that you cannot stifle or suppress people's desire for liberty and so I watched with the same joy as everyone else and I hope that they will be a prelude to the Berlin Wall coming down. This could never have happened if we had not way back before many of you were born, in 1948, stood firm and had a Berlin Air Lift.” But maybe instead she should have sneered “Here we go again!” and sent the UK Parachute Regiment etc to Berlin to stop people from crossing back and forth with orders to shoot anyone who tried to.
Of course it was the unification of Germany that was the cause for many to fear the future.
It’s not clear whether this relates to 1871 or 1990.
If the former case, then Bismarck’s diplomacy laid the groundwork which ensured that Germany stayed at peace with her neighbours for 44 years. This can not be said for the UK, Russia, the US, France and Japan etc. All those powers troubled their neighbours and the peace of the world during those years.
If the latter case, then surely the Fall of the Wall, the end of the GDR and the re-unification of Germany was generally acclaimed and greeted around the world with goodwill. -
Message 27
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
Vis.
I suggest you direct your remarks to those who fought the Germans from democratic countries, and those who suffered at the concentration camps, no point in pointing to Stalin, Britain did not declare war on Russia, and had a great sigh of relief when Hitler attacked Russia. The next big sigh was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, the brought in the USA, which Britain thought it was their duty to join Britain when Britain declared war on Germany. -
Message 28
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 14th August 2011
The word 'Britain' seems to appear no fewer than 4 times in that rather confused post which also has nothing to do with the story of the Berlin Wall.
This is particularly odd when one considers that not a single part of the Wall was on the territory of the British Sector of Berlin (or of the American Sector or of the French Sector) but was built entirely on the territory of the former Soviet Zone (i.e. East Germany) and also on the territory of the Soviet Sector - i.e. East Berlin. -
Message 29
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 15th August 2011
Bismarck’s diplomacy laid the groundwork which ensured that Germany stayed at peace with her neighbours for 44 years.
On the contrary, Bismarck had unified Germany through, and by, war arousing the suspcions, hostility and resentment of all his neighbours. He first attacked Denmark, a much smaller, peaceable neighbour, in 1864 followed by an attack two years later on a much larger neighbour in the form of Austria, whom, having defeated, he later allied with, arousing the suspicion of Russia.
Finally, by rewording the Ems Telegram, he provoked a war with France in which the German Army (that is to say Prussia and its allies) invaded France, destroying property, executing civilians and taking reprisals along tthe way - a pattern followed by later generations of Teutonic soldiery. After bombarding Paris, overseen by Bismarck in his military uniform, the Treaty of Frankfurt not only seized territory that was to be disputed and eventually fought over for the next 75 years but exacted reparations which, unlike Germany after 1919, France paid without complaint or external assistance within two years.
However this left a legacy of bitterness and humiliation (reparations - a cause of future war? Surely not). The final humiliation was the proclamation of the German Empire, already a de facto political entity, in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, the palace of Louis XIV, who had built French watchtowers on the Rhine.
All these conflicts were conducted not only in the name of Prussia, but also that of the German Confederation, an entity Bismarck had constructed through a mixture of economic bribery, political bullying and, even, naked military force (such as the occupation of Hanover). .
Of course he could pretend to be the peacemaker and statesman as at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, redrawing the map of Europe following the Russo-Turkish War but it was to be German interest in the Balkans (despite Bismarck's well-known aphorism), via its proxy, Austria, that was to provoke the conflagration that would destroy the German Empire and, after a short entr'acte, Germany in the form created by Bismarck. The "encirclement" of Germany that Bismarck and his successors would rail against was largely of their own making. -
Message 30
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Monday, 15th August 2011
Working for a German company as I do rhmnney I couldn't agree more, the industrial might and efficiency of the German economy is impressive.
However Germanys greatest weakness has always been her lack of oil and gas, she has coal but not in the quantities enjoyed by the UK.
With the political demise of her atomic power it looks like she's going to need more Russian gas.
So love them or loath them, Western Europe will have to be nice to their old cold war enemy.
My Russian friend is very optimistic, but then he does work for Gazprom.
His joke may be cute the reality isn't. -
Message 31
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Monday, 15th August 2011
The occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR after the war did cross my mind suvorovet.
The official line always seems to be that a war weary world did little to prevent it because it kept the peace. However with the exception of Poland and Czechoslovakia, most of the countries occupied where allies of Germany.
So I've always suspected that the Western powers didn't care much. -
Message 32
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 15th August 2011
However with the exception of Poland and Czechoslovakia, most of the countries occupied where allies of Germany.
So I've always suspected that the Western powers didn't care much I thought you wrote that all East Europeans cared about was to keep Germany divided. Even at the expense of being occupied by the Soviets, I presume. Who's confused? -
Message 33
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Monday, 15th August 2011
I believe I used the general phrase Eastern Europeans then followed this up with the clarification that the USSR was the main objector.
Its possible Poland or the Czechs felt the same but I don't recall them making their feelings public at the time.
Perhaps you have a view suvoroetz, if so lets have it. -
Message 34
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 15th August 2011
I believe I used the general phrase Eastern Europeans then followed this up with the clarification that the USSR was the main objector One has to live on the Moon for the past 70 years or so to believe that "East Europeans" could be mixed with the USSR; and, moreover, that they by and large share "their feelings” with the USSR. Perhaps you have a view suvoroetz, if so lets have it. My views are very well known around here. I certainly don't believe that Stalin's USSR should be absolved from being responsible for horrors of the Second World War, just because Stalin's henchmen facilitated Nuremberg Trial instead of sharing the bench with Goering and Co.
-
Message 35
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Monday, 15th August 2011
Cheers suvorovetz, I got the measure of you now. You misrepresent people in order to pick fights with them.
Have a nice life! -
Message 36
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 15th August 2011
I don't represent no people but myself, thank you very much.
-
Message 37
Posted by Lyra (U2293272) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
I can understand why someone who lost family in the Holocaust should have mixed feeling about Germany's reunification. However, I really cannot see the reunited Germany becoming a military threat to anyone. Germany, since the 1960s, has done its best to ensure that Nazism will never again be a threat in Germany. The vast majority of Germans are horrified by their history and are keen to ensure that it never happens again.
If you're looking for a European nation that has not exorcized its history and remains a threat in Europe then you need to look east. The statues of Stalin are going back up in Russia and Russia is beginning to understand that their natural resources give them huge influence in Europe. -
Message 38
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
In reply to PaulRyckier:
Reunification of Germany. I have the impression that many of the contributors haven't read history past and present. I don't not always agree with Suvorovetz, but in this case...Wonder what a Nordmann or a Thomas thinks about all this "loose" reasoning?
Hi Paul,
To give you the answer straight, it´s just the usual thing on here. One starts with a reasonable thread and shortly after it turns into a debate that drifts from the OP.
Well, I´ve on one journey crossed these borders for a short trip to (West-) Berlin in 1986 and they were the worst of all, because of its "German perfectionism". When you were travelling to Hungary in the same time, on their border to Austria there was just a barbed wire and they weren´t so unfriendly as these officials of the then GDR. When I passed the passport control at Berlin-Friedrichstrasse, I was rather surprised upon the - for West-Germans - quite normal dealing with visitors in a more friendly way. But that was just when I got there for a day visit and payed my 25 DM into their "Monopoly money". On the way back, it was the usual GDR procedure and when I arrived back in West-Berlin, I was quite relieved for being back into the West.
But Paul, I rather would recommend you to see the Inner-German border and especially the Berlin Wall in the context of the experiences of WWII by many European countries because this was worse then what happened in WWI. Most Germans - me included - may had hoped that one day Germany will be re-united again, but at the same time they were as realistic enough that this might not happen in the near future. So the fall of the Berlin Wall was the rather unexpected fall of the East-Block and the end of the cold war.
If one has lost 60 members of his family during the Holocaust, quite frankly you can´t expect him to have a neutral view on Germany.
Kind regards,
Thomas -
Message 39
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
If one has lost 60 members of his family during the Holocaust, quite frankly you can´t expect him to have a neutral view on Germany.
Possibly the understatement of the year!!
However...after what has happened, which incidentally still touches millions of people, how can anyone have a neutral view of Germany?
You either adhere to the statements/views....
"We didn't know what was going on.....we were not Nazis or nazi supporters...we did not cheer Hitler when he drove past (at least while we were winning)...we didn't turn a blind eye to all the atrocities happening in front of our eyes...we were only following orders when we murdered millions of children, we were soldiers, we had to do it...the HitlerJugend was a really good organisation, got the kids out into the fresh air....we were defending the world against ommunism...and you know what...those Jews/gipsies/communists/socialistshomosexuals.....we did the world a favour, they get everywhere you know"
or you think that what Germany did in two world wars particularly No. 2 is the worst, filthiest most disgusting behaviour any country has ever done in the history of the world.
If you think the latter...and I can't think any decent person would think otherwise...then why would anyone want to see that country united rich and powerful again? -
Message 40
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
In reply to wiseraphael:
If you think the latter...and I can't think any decent person would think otherwise...then why would anyone want to see that country united rich and powerful again?
First of all, it was more a political decision made by the then West-German government to take the chance and bring a re-unification of the two German states forward. That´s the way it went and the efforts taken by the West-German government were their duty according to the constitution which obliged each government to seek unification when possible.
I can understand your sentiments in the light of your lost relatives and there is no way on either excuse it nore to forget it. These things which happened are unforgiveable and if I would be in the place of someone who lost their relatives at that time, quite frankly I couldn´t do otherwise.
As long as Germany is that deep integrated into the EU, UN, NATO and other international organisations, there wouldn´t be anything to worry about.
You´re simply denying the fact that from the very establishing of the Federal Republic of Germany, under the guidance of the Western Allies, this Germany had become very different from all kind of states it ever inherited. We have had to learn and to accept our democracy and republic and without any pride, I can state that we´ve learned our lessons and we did well. There is, aside from a few backwards minded people, not intention for going back in time and to become the most militaristic state in Europe.
If you take note of the developments of democracy in some former East-European countries, you might notice that there is still a tendency to sacrifice democratic structures for which people fought for in "favour" of authoritanism. Just a few examples I like to give by Hungary, Ukraine and not to mention Russia. These sacrifices are being made not by the people of these countries, but by the current leaders for their own purpose.
If you prefer to stick by your opinion which seems to be based on the impression of the past, you´re just inclined to ignore the developments of the past 60 years.
One is for sure, if West-Germany hadn´t been developed into that partner in West-Europe, the Allies never had approved the treaty that leds to the re-unification of Germany.
However...after what has happened, which incidentally still touches millions of people, how can anyone have a neutral view of Germany?
Simply in dealing with history from the historical point of view and not to mix it with the present. -
Message 41
Posted by Calendula (U2331338) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
I occasionally lurk on this board but was drawn to this thread because I'm about to go to Berlin on holiday for a week and am becoming interested in the history of the Wall. I remember it coming down but not much before then.
So please excuse the dumb questions, but did the two ends join up? In other words, did it encircle East Berlin? If so could non-Berliner East Germans pass freely in and out of the city? And if not how far did it extend into the hinterland? What did the border guards do at the "ends" to stop crossing? What was to stop people doubling back into West Berlin once they had crossed and moved far enough west? -
Message 42
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
In reply to Calendula:
From what I´ve learned about that part of history, to settle in East-Berlin, one from the rural parts of the GDR had to got a permission by the authorities to move there. To make a trip for a visit to East-Berlin was not a big problem.
The Wall itself only was going around West-Berlin. -
Message 43
Posted by alanpatten (U1866183) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
Before the 'authorities' allowed the Easties to travel West, it was made quite clear that non-return would ensure harsh treatment of relatives left behind.
If you were a lorry driver etc. you always had a companion with you, whose job it was to report on you. The companion, who was also a driver was changed for each trip.
In 1968 in the Czech Spring those who refused to return were told that the state would seize all the property.
Regards.............Alan -
Message 44
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
The wall was surrounded by barbed wire, searchlights and armed guards who would have been under orders to shoot any escapees (except at least one border guard who made an escape). Whilst movement with the GDR would have been possible the Stasi (East German Secret Police) would have known of most people planning to escape, it is believed that as many as 50% of the population either worked for or were Stasi informers. When the wall came down the Stasi archive was saved and has been reconstructed.
-
Message 45
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 16th August 2011
Thomas,
Lyra has answered for me in message 37.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 46
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 17th August 2011
On the contrary, Bismarck had unified Germany through, and by, war arousing the suspcions, hostility and resentment of all his neighbours.
Germany was no more unified ‘through and by war’ than was the UK. In fact when the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England was drawn up in 1707, the War of the Spanish Succession (in alliance with Prussia and against Louis XIV of France) was very much ongoing. And nearly 100 years later (when the UK between Great Britain and Ireland was formed) the French Revolutionary War would also be ongoing.
And it wasn't just against a large neighbour such as France. Neither was the UK averse to violence against, say, the peace and trade of the Low Countries. The Battle of Camperdown in 1797, for example, was as a result of UK aggression in violating the territorial waters of the Netherlands and in interfering with Dutch shipping. The Dutch responding with vigour and bravery to this outrage but were totally and ruthlessly crushed by the massive UK forces ranged against them. The following year in 1798 the UK army crushed the Irish. And the actual year of the Act of Union 1801 would see but none other than ‘smaller, peaceable Denmark’ which also being attacked by the UK. And (as if that wasn’t enough) the UK would then attack ‘smaller, peaceable Denmark’ again 6 years later in 1807.
With regard to the atrocity propaganda re ‘destroying property, executing civilians and taking reprisals along tthe way - a pattern followed by later generations of Teutonic soldiery’ then, of course, the UK’s record in this is grotesque. The Battle of Copenhagen (mentioned above), for example, saw the UK navy deliberately bombard civilian districts with incendiaries causing thousands of civilian deaths. They did the same again to Finnish villages during the Crimean War leaving the villagers destitute in the face of the harsh Baltic winter. Later on there were overwhelming reprisals committed against Burmese villagers in 1885-6 following the UK’s aggression and invasion of that country. And, of course, there was the appalling brutality meted out by the UK forces against women and children during the Second Boer War 1899-1902. Burned out of their homes and farms and herded into concentration camps. Thousands died. And we haven’t even mentioned Ireland and India etc.
France was no more ‘provoked’ into war in 1870 by Bismarck than Argentina was ‘provoked’ into war in 1982 by Margaret Thatcher. If Napoleon III was foolish and arrogant enough to declare war on Prussia, then that was his problem. It seems that Napoleon III literally couldn't help himself. But then what is the point of being a French Emperor with the name Napoleon if you are not going to have some form of expansionist foreign policy. The failure of the Mexican venture certainly exacerbated this for Napoleon and he seems to have turned his attentions to Europe (and to the Low Countries in particular) as some form of compensation in order to salvage his imperial credentials. No amount of double-talk can alter the fact that in 1870 (as with General Galtieri in 1982) Napoleon III was the aggressor and he lost.
Neither can there be any comparison between the indemnities charged on France in 1871 and those imposed on Germany in 1919. Even without making allowances for the exchange rate and the modest inflation between 1871 and 1919 then 5 billion Francs is nowhere near 132 billion Marks. That said - at least both France and Germany have paid off their war debts. The UK’s First World War debt, however, is still unpaid and outstanding. And now that the global credit rating of the US has been downgraded maybe some US politicians might be thinking that it’s apposite to start calling in those cheques.
The description of the German Confederation as being ‘constructed through a mixture of economic bribery, political bullying and, even, naked military force’ could equally, of course, also be said about the UK. See above re the Treaty of Union 1707 and the Act of Union 1801.
Neither was a fear of ‘encirclement’ unique to Bismarck or to Germany. It’s a concept as old as international affairs. See Assyria and Babylon, the Medes, Persia, Thebes, Byzantium, Prester John, the Auld Alliance, the Bourbons and the Habsburgs etc. In that last case, for example, England’s Henry VIII (twice!) sided with the Habsburg Emperor Charles V against an already surrounded France.
Similarly, Prussia and Russia didn’t suddenly fall out of the sky in 1870. Their geopolitical relationship was what it was. And if Bismarck was only ‘pretending’ to be the peacemaker and statesman at Berlin in 1878 then he seems to have done a very good job of this ‘pretence’. Such a good job in fact that Germany remained at peace for the rest of his life and for years beyond. That’s some act of pretending. And when war did break out in 1914 one wonders why the ‘suspicious, hostile and resentful neighbours’ of Germany such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden all remained neutral. In fact more countries in Europe remained neutral during the First World War than in any other continent. One would have thought that they would all have been itching to have a go at the evil, hated, militaristic and aggressive Germany. No amount of huffing and puffing can alter the fact that Bismarck’s diplomacy ensured that Germany was at peace for 44 years. And no UK politician has ever been able to make such a claim with regard to the UK.
The idea that the Proclamation of the German Empire at Versailles in 1871 was a singular and unique act of humiliation is simply risible. One only has to think of the UK’s spiteful burning down of the American Capitol and Presidential Palace in Washington in 1814 or the arrogant Delhi Durbar of 1911, when the Princes of India were forced to publicly grovel before a foreign ‘emperor’ on the site of Shah Jahan’s very own Red Fort. By comparison the event in the Hall of Mirrors seems decidedly tame and civilised. It's also highly ironic that in a thread about the Berlin Wall then this Englishman is somehow expected to regret the passing of the ludicrous Sun King’s ‘watchtowers on the Rhine’. -
Message 47
Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Thursday, 18th August 2011
So now we know...the Germans were no worse than anyone else and only did what other countries had done.
They're just misunderstood and really quite innocent.
...as my eleven year old granddaughter would say....."Yeah, right!" -
Message 48
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 18th August 2011
I´m always following your posts with much interest vizzer.
Above all, it´s interesting to see the way you try to keep the English either out of the worst or have them in simply as part of the UK.
You forget that the forces of the UK by those engaged with them in battle are just called "the English", no matter where the soldiers came from regarding the UK´s territories.
Up to the rise of Prussia, which took just 160 years from the time when the first Prussian Duke crowned himself to be King, the Habsburgers delivered the Emperors of the then Holy Roman Empire for 800 years. Prussia and England have more in common than the Habsburger ever had. England was the forcing and the building part of Britain and later the UK and has dominated the whole British Islands for centuries. Prussia in compare to that had less than a century but to dominate the German states, it had to kick out the Habsburgers and extent its territory to gain more influence and political weight within the German Confederation from 1815 to 1866.
It is my conviction that without England, there had never been a Great Britain, neither a United Kingdom nor the British Empire.
It is as well my conviction that without Prussia, there had never been a second German Empire and there had probably even not been that kind of militarism that shaped the reputation of the Germans on a international level. Whether Germany had find its own way to a democratic confederation by an second attempt to establish it after 1848 is another question.
Bismarck was in German history a great statesman. Still he is considered a such in the present, but he wasn´t without faults and he was a man of power with the desire to prevail his policies.
I´ve still some admiration to the way you stand for England and the English, but sometimes it seems a bit odd to put the English on a level of neglected people when at the same time, they ruled a quater of the world.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 49
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 18th August 2011
In reply to wiseraphael:
So now we know...the Germans were no worse than anyone else and only did what other countries had done.
Up to 1914 it can be said that way. WWI and the Third Reich changed everything occured before. -
Message 50
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 18th August 2011
The idea that the Proclamation of the German Empire at Versailles in 1871 was a singular and unique act of humiliation is simply risible.
And so what if it was a deliberate act of humiliation? It's not as if the French hadn't earned it from hundreds of years of aggression against Germans. From 1453 when the French expelled the English, their armies ravaged their ways across Germany, the Low Countries and northern Italy right up to the point where Prussia and her German allies proved that France was no longer capable of doing so in1870.
And, although Bismark did try to corner Napoleon III into war, no-one except the Germans expected anything other than another victory for France.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.