West Berlin - sorry, Berlin

1978 views
Skip to first unread message

zschoche

unread,
Nov 10, 1989, 3:36:52 AM11/10/89
to
Berlin den 10 November 1989

Unbelievable!
Incredible!
Historic!

As we sit here in West Berlin this morning, we are just discussing the news
about the wall - its open and may soon be no more!!!!

Amazing sights to see on the way to work this morning - DDR (East German)
cars on the streets, DDR citizens everywhere, traffic jams near the wall,
celebrations in the streets the whole night.

A historic day, and one to be celebrate. During the night, not only did
people cross over via the border crossings, but people also climbed over
the wall, danced on top of it (yes that's right) and a part of the wall was
even damaged. Can you picture people dancing on top of the Berlin wall?

Congratulations to the people of East Germany.


Gunter Zschoche, Michael Brady, et al
Nixdorf, Berlin

Teemu Leisti

unread,
Nov 15, 1989, 12:27:33 PM11/15/89
to


Congratulations to all Germans!!

(BTW, why isn't anybody in this newsgroup interested in this?)

Teemu Leisti
U of Helsinki, Finland

Irek Defee

unread,
Nov 15, 1989, 1:27:28 PM11/15/89
to
In article <14...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:

>Congratulations to all Germans!!

Right!! Could it be said also that all Europeans can congratulate
themselves too?

>(BTW, why isn't anybody in this newsgroup interested in this?)

Perhaps everybody is interested, (its hard to avoid this:-),
but nobody can say what will come out of this(?).

>Teemu Leisti
>U of Helsinki, Finland

Irek Defee
Tampere U of Technology, Finland

Stewart Tansley

unread,
Nov 16, 1989, 2:39:49 PM11/16/89
to
In article <14...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>In article <8...@nixbln.UUCP>, zsch...@nixbln.UUCP (zschoche) writes:
>> Berlin den 10 November 1989
>>
>> Unbelievable!
>> Incredible!
>> Historic!
>>
>Congratulations to all Germans!!
>
>(BTW, why isn't anybody in this newsgroup interested in this?)
>

Couldn't agree more! Well, do many West Germans want reunification? Any East
Germans on the net? (0.5*:-)) Are these events anything to do with
reunification? Is reunification interesting anyway? What do you think?

Personally, I miss the objectivism debates - Come back Magnus, all is forgiven!
This silence is exactly what I feared when people called for banning
objectivists. You *need* people with strong faiths for a good ding-dong... :-)

===========================================================================
Stewart Tansley STC Technology Ltd
+44 279 29531 x2763 London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK
ds...@stl.stc.co.uk ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dswt
===========================================================================
If you love something, set it free.
If it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it! ;-) (Thanks to AT)
===========================================================================

Richard Porter

unread,
Nov 17, 1989, 4:34:31 AM11/17/89
to
In article <24...@stl.stc.co.uk> "Stewart Tansley" <ds...@stl.stc.co.uk> writes:

>Well, do many West Germans want reunification? Are these events anything to


>do with reunification? Is reunification interesting anyway? What do you think?

I understand from my contacts in BRD that reunification is not a big issue
at the moment. It's more a case of let's wait and see - there's a long way to
go yet. I think it was very insensitive of Dr. Kohl to go blundering into
Berlin the way he did, talking about one Germany. It must have been very
embarrassing for Willy Brandt who is much more in tune with the people of
Berlin.

>Personally, I miss the objectivism debates - Come back Magnus, all is forgiven!

Actually I unsubscribed because the newsgroup seemed to have been taken over
entirely by the objectivism debate. I decided to look in again because of the
events in Eastern Europe.

Richard Porter.
--
____<_____________>____ ______________________
__ . ___ /_] ### INTERCITY ### [_\ |[][___][___][___][___]
/_/ / / /_________________________\ |Li____________________
/ \ / /__ . +~o-o-o~===========~o-o-o~+-+~ o=o"""""""""""""""""

David Shepherd

unread,
Nov 17, 1989, 9:41:52 AM11/17/89
to
In article <24...@stl.stc.co.uk> "Stewart Tansley" <ds...@stl.stc.co.uk> writes:
>Couldn't agree more! Well, do many West Germans want reunification? Any East
>Germans on the net? (0.5*:-)) Are these events anything to do with
>reunification? Is reunification interesting anyway? What do you think?

Just after the Berlin Wall was opened I was speaking to someone who
came from West Berlin. Her reaction was "Oh no, all those East Germans
with their appalling accents will be coming over"

On the subject of reunification, the next day on the Today program on
BCC Radio 4 they were interviewing various "notable" people about the
situation. A very interesting comment was made by some notable Frenchman
that Germany has only ever been unified between ~1890 and 1945 and
it wasn't exactly as runaway success then.

david shepherd
INMOS ltd

>Personally, I miss the objectivism debates - Come back Magnus, all is forgiven!

perhaps we need eunet.nostalgia

Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D

unread,
Nov 20, 1989, 9:49:20 AM11/20/89
to
ds...@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) writes:

>In article <14...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>>(BTW, why isn't anybody in this newsgroup interested in this?)

>Couldn't agree more! Well, do many West Germans want reunification? Any East
>Germans on the net? (0.5*:-)) Are these events anything to do with
>reunification? Is reunification interesting anyway? What do you think?

As I came home too late to see any news on November 9th, and didn't read a
newspaper in the morning, the first time I heard about the opening of the
borders was on eunet.politics. Since then I have watched this newsgroup
and was really disappointed as no articles were submitted concerning this
topic. However, I didn't want to start a discussion about reunification
here, as I felt this should be done by non-Germans. Maybe other people in
Germany thought the same way.

As far as I watched, talk.politics.* were concerned with their own business,
as was soc.politics. On the german Newsgroup sub.politik ( translation of
"politik" needed? ), however, a discussion began, but flaming this or that
politician was the issue.

I doubt that any East German Computer is on any network, at least legally.
Forgot the Cocom-agreement? But maybe guests from the GDR ar here?! If they
get access to the computers... And, some days ago, a former east german
computer scientist told on TV that he had found a well paid job in West Germany
soon after he arrived. He now works for one of our major military-equipment
companies...

Opinions about reunification are different, here in West Germany. Different
generatons think differently: Older people still remember times when Germany
was one state, or when the separation was much less self-evident as it is now
(or was, until now). Our generation has never known any east border than that
to GDR. On the other hand, both Germanies have much more in common than just
the language. It is hard to say what, but I often get the feeling that they
have much more in common with the west germans than, e.g., the french or the
dutch. But this refers to Austrians and german-speaking Swiss' too, and no one
wants really to be 'reunified' with Austria or Switzerland. In my opinion,
if the borders within Germany are as open as those to Austria and Switzer-
land, in both directions (currently the East Germans can easier come and go
as we West Germans), and the currencies free exchangeable at a fair rate,
there is no more need for reunification. Other people may think different.
But I think, with a reunification there would arise some very hard problems:

Martin Ibert

unread,
Nov 20, 1989, 2:06:46 PM11/20/89
to
Hey, where's all those other Germans?! Am I all alone around here?

Well, I am from West Berlin, maybe I should comment on that German Reunifica-
tion debate.

Our constitution says we all must strive for final reunification of Germany. I
have always thought of that as the formation of a Republic of Germany consist-
ing of and limited to the FRG, the GDR, and all of Berlin.

We should leave the "German" territory east of the Oder-Neisse border (Poland's
present western border) well alone. The Poles should keep that forever.

I personally am in favour of reunification. It will solve a lot of problems
we are now having with visitors and refugees (oops, they don't have to flee
any more, they just come over) from the East. The come over, get those 100 DM,
and start shopping. Then they go back. They bring public transportation to
the brink of collapse around here. I am really happy they can come and go to
their heart's content, but if they all come at once, they spell trouble.

Then they have those *nasty* stinking cars ... well, many problems.

But reunification does not depend on us alone. The East Germans must be in
favour of it too. And I don't think they are, at least not right now.

My opinion is this: If we (all Germans) want it, let's do it. I get angry
looking at all those false friends (US, UK, France, ...) who have been paying
lip-service to the idea for four decades and have always silently (or sometimes
even openly) opposed it.

If they are Western Democracies, they must favour self-determination of the
German people. If they fear for their security, all right: Defend us, at as
far as I am concerned, there does not have to a German army. I like that idea
very much.
--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||
|| | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ||
// Voelker der Welt, schaut auf diese Stadt! \\

Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D

unread,
Nov 20, 1989, 1:05:40 PM11/20/89
to
[ Sorry for having inadvertedly posted an uncomplete version of this
Article before. #@%$!@-Computers! ]

ds...@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) writes:

>In article <14...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>>(BTW, why isn't anybody in this newsgroup interested in this?)

>Couldn't agree more! Well, do many West Germans want reunification? Any East
>Germans on the net? (0.5*:-)) Are these events anything to do with
>reunification? Is reunification interesting anyway? What do you think?

As I came home too late to see any news on November 9th, and didn't read a

1) The economic differences between both Germanies will, if this is not
prevented, lead to a sell-out of East Germany. Literally! The course
was 5DM:100M for east german money, yesterday, and it is said that some
west germans are already collecting M to buy houses etc. in East Germany
when the borders are completely open. I get the impression that most
West Germans are not willing to spend a single DM of their personal wealth
for reunification.
2) Both Germanies belong to different political blocks, and none of the blocks
will let 'their' Germany go to the other one. West Germans would not want
to change, too. I don't know about the East Germans. So the only solution
would be a reunified neutral Germany. Other states don't seem to like this
idea much. Germany can't do this without consent of her neighbours. And,
if it ever comes to a war, Germany will be the battlefield, despite all
neutrality.

Another point is, that in most West Germans' imagination, reunifications
means merely swallowing East Germany, politically and economically.

This doesn't exclude reunification forever. If GDR has achieved a certain
economic standard, and the military blocks become more and more meaning-
less, and we West Germans learn to accept East Germany as a political unit
herself instead of Uncle Ivan's front garden, then reunification may be
on the agenda.

In another article, d...@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) wrote::

>On the subject of reunification, the next day on the Today program on
>BCC Radio 4 they were interviewing various "notable" people about the
>situation. A very interesting comment was made by some notable Frenchman
>that Germany has only ever been unified between ~1890 and 1945 and
>it wasn't exactly as runaway success then.

Germany was unified between 1871 and 1945. But unified does not refer to
a centrally governed state, like France. Germany was always, from the
early middle ages to now, except between 1935 and 1945, a federation of
(more or less) souvereign states. (Hitler deprived the states of the second
empire of their souvereignity.) From the 10th century to the end of the
30 years war in 1645, there was the 'Reich', the first german Empire, a
collection of kingdoms and duchesies with one of the kings as emperor.
His power dependet on his personal power and abilities and on the local kings
and dukes, but most times he was really gouverning. This changed 1645, but
the empire existed on, formally. The emperor, however, was now politically
meaningless. This empire ceased to exist in 1815.

esgibtkeinausgezeichnetesinertialsystemalleinertialsystemesindgleichwertig
|
Oliver Bonten | From inside Germany:
Lehrstuhl D f. Mathematik | mathed@rwthinf
RWTH Aachen |
| From outside Germany:
D-5100 Aachen | F...@DACTH51.bitnet
West-Germany |
|
The above are Institute's accounts, so add a 'to: Oliver Bonten' - line

K G Dancey

unread,
Nov 21, 1989, 5:30:51 AM11/21/89
to
In article <14...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>In article <8...@nixbln.UUCP>, zsch...@nixbln.UUCP (zschoche) writes:
>> Berlin den 10 November 1989
>>
>> Unbelievable!
>> Incredible!
>> Historic!
>>
>> As we sit here in West Berlin this morning...

I must say I felt extremely jealous of Berliners that weekend... It w a s
a momentous occassion, a cathartic release of decades of tension.

What is happening in central Europe is a rapid, domino collapse of Stalinism,
due in no small part to Solidarnosc and Gorbachov... The opportunities for
the future are immense. But I believe we may be in for some surprises with
erstwhile purveyors of "freedom and democracy" resisting the necessary
military adjustments and questions of nation status. After all, there is
an awful lot of investment and self-interest involved with military funding
that will drive some people into hankering after the "status-quo". My hope
is that the current movement sows the seeds for a de-militarised Central
Europe that can prosper and spread to the nether regions.


Erhard Sanio

unread,
Nov 22, 1989, 2:24:54 PM11/22/89
to
In article <24...@stl.stc.co.uk> "Stewart Tansley" <ds...@stl.stc.co.uk> writes:
>In article <14...@cc.helsinki.fi> LEI...@cc.helsinki.fi (Teemu Leisti) writes:
>
>Couldn't agree more! Well, do many West Germans want reunification? Any East
>Germans on the net? (0.5*:-)) Are these events anything to do with
>reunification? Is reunification interesting anyway? What do you think?
>
Well, Stewart, I can't speak for "the Germans", though I'm one (more or less).
But personally, I'm strictly against reunification for several reasons.
First, I fear that the equilibre in the mid of Europe may be destroyed by
the existence of an economic superpower which a "re"united Germany would be,
without doubt. This would be a major concern for our neighbours, I guess.
Second, the people of the GDR is the first who completed successfully a
revolution in the German-speaking part of Europe since 600 years.
That valuable example might be extinguished by a simple absorption of
East Germany by West Germany, which would be the inevitable result of
a reunification.
Third, I believe that socialism is more than the poststalinist dictatorship
of Ulbricht resp Honecker. Most even of the GDR opposition groups don't
want to abandon socialism. Giving them the chance to go their way might be
in favor of all of us. If they decide to finally abandon socialism and go
th capitalist way, ok. If they succeed to build up a socialist and democratic
society, as well not bad at all for us all. I regard it foolish to declare
the final victory of capitalism, now. There are such lots of internal
and global problems in the world and in all countries that competing
ways to build up and maintain a society serve us all. That would be impos-
sible in case of reunification.
Fourth, the problem of the two military treaty systems remains unsolved.
Absorbing the GDR into a NATO member FRG would mean a kick into the face of
Gorbachew, who encouraged the changes in GDR, an might be intolerable for
the USSR. On the other hand, a neutralization of whole Germany might be
intolerable for the USA and the NATO.

>Personally, I miss the objectivism debates - Come back Magnus, all is forgiven!
>This silence is exactly what I feared when people called for banning
>objectivists. You *need* people with strong faiths for a good ding-dong... :-)

I agree that eunet.politics turned dull after Magnus' leave. It's a shame
that flamig is the best way to keep a discussion alive.


>
>===========================================================================
>Stewart Tansley STC Technology Ltd
>+44 279 29531 x2763 London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK

>===========================================================================
regards, es

Erhard Sanio

unread,
Nov 22, 1989, 3:48:51 PM11/22/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>Hey, where's all those other Germans?! Am I all alone around here?
>
Hi, Martin, I'm here. :-)

>Well, I am from West Berlin, maybe I should comment on that German Reunifica-
>tion debate.
>
>Our constitution says we all must strive for final reunification of Germany. I
>have always thought of that as the formation of a Republic of Germany consist-
>ing of and limited to the FRG, the GDR, and all of Berlin.
Not completely true. There is a statement like that in the preliminary comment
of the constitution. It's more than questionable that it forms a duty to all
citizens. Personally, I don't feel compelled by it. But let's leave that to the
lawyers.

>
>We should leave the "German" territory east of the Oder-Neisse border (Poland's
>present western border) well alone. The Poles should keep that forever.
agreed

>
>I personally am in favour of reunification. It will solve a lot of problems
>we are now having with visitors and refugees (oops, they don't have to flee
>any more, they just come over) from the East. The come over, get those 100 DM,
>and start shopping. Then they go back. They bring public transportation to
>the brink of collapse around here. I am really happy they can come and go to
>their heart's content, but if they all come at once, they spell trouble.
>
I don't see at all how a reunification should hinder East Germany's
population to rush in . On the long range, the sitution will normalize -
with or without reunification. Maybe that the West Berlin subway has
to be extended, well - why not.

>Then they have those *nasty* stinking cars ... well, many problems.
Do you think that GDR people will burn their trabbies on a reunifica-
tion party? Even the Honecker government planned to modernize the
Trabant and Wartburg engines - no reunification necessary for that.
Technical aid from West German car producers would be helpful, anyway.

>
>But reunification does not depend on us alone. The East Germans must be in
>favour of it too. And I don't think they are, at least not right now.

Right. They know very well that reunification would mean absorption -
and not everything in West Germany is bright example for our poor, under-
developed brothers and sisters in the East :-) .

>
>My opinion is this: If we (all Germans) want it, let's do it. I get angry
>looking at all those false friends (US, UK, France, ...) who have been paying
>lip-service to the idea for four decades and have always silently (or sometimes
>even openly) opposed it.
>

I strictly disagree. Those countries (including Poland, USSR and others)
sacrificed 50 million lives in order to roll back German expansionism.
Concerns about their safety and independence are basically legitimate
and have to be respected by any German government.
And concerning lip-services (is that the right expression?): West German
overnment is one of the worst (concerning hypocrisy).
They offered free immigration to all German nationals in Eastern countries
in order to put hazard on communist governments. Now, they are about to
reduce immigration, because those countries were that nasty to follow
what they were urged to. Same with freedom of movement: nice to be used
for anticommunist campaigns, but now, West Germany imposes compulsory
exchange on Polish citicens and closes the borders for refugees as much as they can.
What is freedom of movement worth while if you can go outside your country,
but nobody lets you come in?


>If they are Western Democracies, they must favour self-determination of the
>German people. If they fear for their security, all right: Defend us, at as
>far as I am concerned, there does not have to a German army. I like that idea
>very much.

Well, I wouldn't bother (a) demilitarized Germany(s), too. But note that an
economic superpower is a legitimate subject of concern, as well.


>--
> \\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
> || |\ /| E-mail mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||


Dr. Erhard Sanio Tempelhofer Damm 194 , 1000 Berlin 42, Phone xx49-30-7521197
e...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!es
e...@athen.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!sinix!athen!es

hh@trillian

unread,
Nov 23, 1989, 11:52:13 AM11/23/89
to
Path: trillian
!hh

In article <17...@rwthinf.UUCP> mat...@rwthinf.UUCP (Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D) writes:
>However, I didn't want to start a discussion about reunification
>here, as I felt this should be done by non-Germans. Maybe other people in
>Germany thought the same way.

I think, many people (e.g. me) feared to be considered neo-nazistic when
talking about these matters. And I mean: by Germans, not foreigners. This
danger is quite real here in Germany! But why non-Germans. Don't they have
their own problems? Who on earth does REALLY STILL fear Germany?

>And, some days ago, a former east german
>computer scientist told on TV that he had found a well paid job in West Germany
>soon after he arrived. He now works for one of our major military-equipment
>companies...

Really? (Surprise, surprise! :-))

>On the other hand, both Germanies have much more in common than just
>the language. It is hard to say what, but I often get the feeling that they
>have much more in common with the west germans than, e.g., the french or the
>dutch. But this refers to Austrians and german-speaking Swiss' too, and no one
>wants really to be 'reunified' with Austria or Switzerland.

At least both Germanies have one thing in common: Berlin. And that's a
strong reminder of what's the differrence between Austria/Switzerland and
East Germany. (Or just consider the names... :-))

>In my opinion,
>if the borders within Germany are as open as those to Austria and Switzer-
>land, in both directions (currently the East Germans can easier come and go
>as we West Germans), and the currencies free exchangeable at a fair rate,
>there is no more need for reunification. Other people may think different.
>But I think, with a reunification there would arise some very hard problems:

Very true. One of these problems IS the exchangeability (any short word for
this?) of the currency. I still do believe there is a need for reunification
(consider the situation in Berlin in the above scenario) and I am NOT
neo-nazistic, nor 'Republican' (German meaning).

P.S. Maybe the header (From: etc.) of this is in a mess. It's not my fault.
At least that's what I hope. :-)

Snail mail: | E mail: h...@trillian.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Hasko Heinecke +-------------------------------------------------
Ostenbergstr. 97 | Computers are different from telephones!
D-4600 Dortmund 50 | Computers do not ring! -Tanenbaum

hh@trillian

unread,
Nov 23, 1989, 12:17:43 PM11/23/89
to
Path: trillian
!hh

Sorry to post again, but I MUST answer that article.

In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>But personally, I'm strictly against reunification for several reasons.
>First, I fear that the equilibre in the mid of Europe may be destroyed by
>the existence of an economic superpower which a "re"united Germany would be,
>without doubt.

Well, maybe they would have some PROFIT of this as well. This was the idea
behind the uniting of Europe, wasn't it?

>Second, the people of the GDR is the first who completed successfully a
>revolution in the German-speaking part of Europe since 600 years.

REALLY! I always knew East Germany is a museum. Only the tickets are quite
expensive - 25 DM. (When you enter East Germany you must exchange 25 DM per
day into some, uh, currency called Mark der DDR, I think.) 1/2 :-)

>That valuable example might be extinguished by a simple absorption of
>East Germany by West Germany, which would be the inevitable result of
>a reunification.

Would it? Don't be more catholic than the pope. (German proverb)

>Third, I believe that socialism is more than the poststalinist dictatorship
>of Ulbricht resp Honecker.

Ok, just go on believing. It's not forbidden. Fortunatly.

>Most even of the GDR opposition groups don't
>want to abandon socialism. Giving them the chance to go their way might be
>in favor of all of us. If they decide to finally abandon socialism and go
>th capitalist way, ok. If they succeed to build up a socialist and democratic
>society, as well not bad at all for us all.

All right.

>Fourth, the problem of the two military treaty systems remains unsolved.
>Absorbing the GDR into a NATO member FRG would mean a kick into the face of
>Gorbachew, who encouraged the changes in GDR, an might be intolerable for
>the USSR. On the other hand, a neutralization of whole Germany might be
>intolerable for the USA and the NATO.

There was something, in Prague, you know, some years ago, I can't quite
remember... The Soviets (not Gorbachew) couldn't tolerate that as well. See?
1/2 :-) or less.

Martin Ibert

unread,
Nov 23, 1989, 1:09:49 PM11/23/89
to
In article <17...@rwthinf.UUCP> mat...@rwthinf.UUCP (Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D) writes:
:ds...@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) writes:
:
:[...] However, I didn't want to start a discussion about reunification

:here, as I felt this should be done by non-Germans.

Huh? You *ARE* a non-German, right? So you should have started one! (Or was
that a typo?)

:I doubt that any East German Computer is on any network, at least legally.
:Forgot the Cocom-agreement?

Well, I think some computers may be exported to the East (C64s are no longer
forbidden, or are they?), and they do have their own MS-DOS-based (or equi-
valent) machines. But I have heard that possession of communation equipment
(modems, couplers) is against East German law.

:[...] It is hard to say what, but I often get the feeling that they


:have much more in common with the west germans than, e.g., the french or the
:dutch. But this refers to Austrians and german-speaking Swiss' too, and no one
:wants really to be 'reunified' with Austria or Switzerland. In my opinion,
:if the borders within Germany are as open as those to Austria and Switzer-
:land, in both directions (currently the East Germans can easier come and go
:as we West Germans), and the currencies free exchangeable at a fair rate,
:there is no more need for reunification. Other people may think different.

At least I don't. You captured my feelings very well, better than I could have
done.


--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||

Gernot Heiser

unread,
Nov 24, 1989, 6:45:15 PM11/24/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>Well, Stewart, I can't speak for "the Germans", though I'm one (more or less).
>But personally, I'm strictly against reunification for several reasons.
>First, I fear that the equilibre in the mid of Europe may be destroyed by
>the existence of an economic superpower which a "re"united Germany would be,
>without doubt. This would be a major concern for our neighbours, I guess.
> [ ... ]

>Fourth, the problem of the two military treaty systems remains unsolved.
>Absorbing the GDR into a NATO member FRG would mean a kick into the face of
>Gorbachew, who encouraged the changes in GDR, an might be intolerable for
>the USSR. On the other hand, a neutralization of whole Germany might be
>intolerable for the USA and the NATO.

I think you are lacking some imagination here. There can be no doubt that after
the events of the last couple of months (starting with the Hungarians opening
their borders) there is no way back the the previous post-war state. With East
and West loosing more and more reasons to be scared of each other, the military
blocks will loose importance - they may be gone soon.

Sure, all the politicians in east and west keep telling the opposite, but
that's just because they would rather keep things the way they were. For those
in power, the status quo was much more comfortable as it is now, where no one
really knows what's going to happen. How do they want to motivate further
spending on arms when all those bad guys aren't bad any more? Sooner or later
(and I believe sooner) the peoples of Europe will be fed up with this (if they
aren't already), and what good are those military blocks then?????

The East bloc obviously start disintegrating, politically and militarily. The
West bloc won't survive that; if there is no East bloc, NATO will fall apart
quickly. So, what's the problem? I certainly will feel more at ease with _less_
weapons. So will most people, I think. And besides, I think it's time Europe is
being run by Europeans, not by Americans and Russians.

With respect to German re-unification: there is no way that we can build a free
and peaceful Europe if the right to self-determination is _not_ granted to the
Germans. There is no freedom with two classes of nations, self-determining ones
and others.

Let's make a "gedankenexperiment". Short of a military coup in either Moscow or
E-Berlin (with immense bloodshed), there seems to be no doubt that the GDR will
see free elections soon. Let's suppose they take place some time next year.
Let's further suppose, the newly elected GDR parliament passes a law to conduct
a plebiscite on re-unification. Let's assume, a clear majority of the GDR
population says yes. What's going to happen? Will they sent tanks? Russian
ones? American ones? Neither Russians nor Americans (nor the French nor the
British) would like that to happen, but are they going to say no? Can they do
so openly with the whole world watching?

If the people want it, it's got to happen, no matter how others like the
economical power of a united Germany. With respect to the (legitimate) safety
interests of our neighbours, that is certainly a problem that can be solved. A
peace treaty, to finally and officially end WW2, certainly would help (really
the only way to guarantee the borders of, say Poland).

To imply that the Germans, once united, are bound to resort militarism is
nothing but racism. Nor is there a serious reason to believe that. There is
much less nationalism in Germany than in most other European countries. And the
Germans have finally learned the lessons. Depriving them further of their
rights will only work the wrong way.
--
Gernot Heiser Phone: +41 1/256 23 48
Integrated Systems Laboratory CSNET/ARPA: heiser%iis.e...@relay.cs.net
ETH Zuerich UUCP (new): hei...@iis.uucp
CH-8092 Zuerich, Switzerland UUCP (old): {uunet,mcvax,...}!iis!heiser

Nicolai A. Czempin

unread,
Nov 24, 1989, 12:45:57 PM11/24/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>>Hey, where's all those other Germans?! Am I all alone around here?
>>
>Hi, Martin, I'm here. :-)
Yes, me too. UP here!

>>Well, I am from West Berlin, maybe I should comment on that German Reunifica-
>>tion debate.

me too.(well, not any more. But, in the immortal words of A.S.: I'll be
back. Hey! I think I'll put that in my .signature!)

>>Our constitution says we all must strive for final reunification of Germany. I
>>have always thought of that as the formation of a Republic of Germany consist-
>>ing of and limited to the FRG, the GDR, and all of Berlin.

I don't know whether I've posted this before or not, if I have, well,
here it is again.
The Federal Republic of Germany does NOT HAVE a constitution.
There is only the "GRUNDGESETZ", which is NOT a constitution. West
Berlin does have a constitution. (And I clearly remember having been
given a copy of: "Das Grundgesetz & Verfassung von Berlin" many years back.)
We will not have a constitution until we get a peace treaty, and we
can't get a peace treaty until we're unified.
(N.B. this is how I understand it, and how my father explained it to me.
He has a politics degree so he *should* know. Anybody claim otherwise?)

>>We should leave the "German" territory east of the Oder-Neisse border (Poland's
>>present western border) well alone. The Poles should keep that forever.
>agreed

strongly agreed. Just leave everybody else's territory _well_ alone. And
decrease the size of the army; what do we need it for? (I mean, come
on!)

>tion party? Even the Honecker government planned to modernize the
>Trabant and Wartburg engines - no reunification necessary for that.

Hey, didn't you hear? Trabbis now get VW Polo engines! (This is no :-)

>Technical aid from West German car producers would be helpful, anyway.

see line above

>>My opinion is this: If we (all Germans) want it, let's do it. I get angry

[....]


>Well, I wouldn't bother (a) demilitarized Germany(s), too. But note that an
>economic superpower is a legitimate subject of concern, as well.

How? Do you really think economic reasons are legitimate for not wanting
a unified Germany? To who? the Americans? or the EEC?
I am wondering about something: How many Germans out there _want_ the
Bundeswehr? Since this is apparently an 'academic' network, I don't
think many will. (So far the score is 3-0 against the Bund)
[Maybe that's we've had 3/3 Berliners]


>>--
>> \\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
>

>Dr. Erhard Sanio Tempelhofer Damm 194 , 1000 Berlin 42, Phone xx49-30-7521197

(I quoted mainly from the first message, sorry not to have used the
original one)

Nicolai Czempin, Edinburgh University (in term-time)
3040 Soltau (in the holidays) [formerly 1/41]

p.s. If there is any irrelevant stuff in this article, that's because my
news program says I have to write more than the original message.

--
Nicolai Czempin
"I am not left-handed either"

Matthew Huntbach

unread,
Nov 24, 1989, 2:23:13 PM11/24/89
to
>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>>We should leave the "German" territory east of the Oder-Neisse border (Poland's
>>present western border) well alone. The Poles should keep that forever.
>agreed
But Russia still keeps the bits of Poland it stole after
collaborating with Hitler?

Simon Leinen

unread,
Nov 25, 1989, 7:38:23 AM11/25/89
to
In article <11...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Nicolai A. Czempin) writes:

The Federal Republic of Germany does NOT HAVE a constitution.
There is only the "GRUNDGESETZ", which is NOT a constitution.

As the Grundgesetz forms the base of the decisions of the
``Verfassungsgericht'' (``consitution court'', which is the german
Supreme Court), it is functionally equivalent to a consitution. The
inventors of this consitution (``die V\"ater des Grundgesetzes'')
chose not to name it ``Verfassung'' because it was intended as
temporary, as you correctly stated.

... We will not have a constitution until we get a peace treaty,


and we can't get a peace treaty until we're unified.

I always thought it were just the other way round: We're not gonna be
unified until there is a peace treaty.

(N.B. this is how I understand it, and how my father explained it
to me. He has a politics degree so he *should* know. Anybody claim
otherwise?)

No, if he has a politics degree, then he *should* know.

>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:

>>...


>>My opinion is this: If we (all Germans) want it, let's do it. I

>>get angry ...

No, sorry, not ``all Germans'' want it. At least, I certainly don't.
So let's not do it.

``Ich mag Deutschland so gerne, da\ss{} ich am liebsten zwei davon
habe.''

``I like Germany so much I rather have two of them.''

(Probably incorrect quotation attributed to multiple persons, possibly
Alfred Grosser)
--
Simon Leinen.

Irek Defee

unread,
Nov 25, 1989, 1:55:29 PM11/25/89
to
In article <11...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Nicolai A. Czempin) writes:
>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:

>>>We should leave the "German" territory east of the Oder-Neisse
>>>border (Poland's present western border) well alone. The Poles
>>>should keep that forever.
>>agreed
>strongly agreed. Just leave everybody else's territory _well_ alone. And
>decrease the size of the army; what do we need it for? (I mean, come on!)

That's great :-). But how about those 19-35% (time&event dependent)
surveyed in opinion polls in FRG who d o n' t agree with the present
border and think that it should be changed?

In article <m...@cs.qmc.ac.uk> (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>But Russia still keeps the bits of Poland it stole after
>collaborating with Hitler?

Hmm, these territories were integrated into the republics of Lithuania,
Byelorussia and Ukraina (not Russia!) which consider them as their own.
So the opinion in Poland is now identical to the opinions expressed
above: They should keep these territories forever.

Irek De...@tut.fi

Martin Ibert

unread,
Nov 25, 1989, 5:38:52 PM11/25/89
to
In article <17...@laura.UUCP> h...@trillian.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Hasko Heinecke) writes:
>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>>First, I fear that the equilibre in the mid of Europe may be destroyed by
>>the existence of an economic superpower which a "re"united Germany would be,
>>without doubt.
>
>Well, maybe they would have some PROFIT of this as well. This was the idea
>behind the uniting of Europe, wasn't it?

Hey, what is all that crap about? There are about 80 million Germans. They are
ONE (1) people and if they choose so, have the internationally acknowledged
right to live in ONE (1) state.

If the French are not so numerous, is that our fault? Hardly. If Germany really
becomes an economic superpower, that will be (um, uh...) deserved, and not
unjust on anybody. The French (and all the others) have no right to deny us
our freedom and unity because they are so few! (And their econmy is less
healthy than ours [West Germany's].

As an aside, it will take years and years for Germany to emerge as an economic
superpower. Ten or more year's work will go into the now-GDR to get that shit
(oh, sorry: sh*t) up to Western standards. Only then will we have energy left
to get an economic giant on the world's markets.

>>Third, I believe that socialism is more than the poststalinist dictatorship
>>of Ulbricht resp Honecker.
>
>Ok, just go on believing. It's not forbidden. Fortunatly.

No, it's not. I believe that too.

>>Fourth, the problem of the two military treaty systems remains unsolved.
>>Absorbing the GDR into a NATO member FRG would mean a kick into the face of
>>Gorbachew, who encouraged the changes in GDR, an might be intolerable for
>>the USSR. On the other hand, a neutralization of whole Germany might be
>>intolerable for the USA and the NATO.

STOP IT OR I'LL CRY! The Nato is a defensive pact. If we no longer want to
be defended by them, we can leave NATO, and NO nation with any self-respect
should even think of stopping us.

Yes, I know that does not include the US. But shall we go on being intimidated
by that hamburger-munching bunch of arrogant s*ckers?

Let make me one thing clear: I favour reunification only if the East Germans
want it too, and I don't see that now. I see a chance to try some democratic
socialism in the GDR, and I'd hate to see it wasted. If that doesn't work, we
can still annex them :-) But they should try their way first, and we should
help them, with no strings attached. Maybe it works.


--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //

Erhard Sanio

unread,
Nov 26, 1989, 9:15:27 AM11/26/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>In article <17...@laura.UUCP> h...@trillian.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Hasko Heinecke) writes:
>>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>>>First, I fear that the equilibre in the mid of Europe may be destroyed by
>Hey, what is all that crap about? There are about 80 million Germans. They are
>ONE (1) people and if they choose so, have the internationally acknowledged
>right to live in ONE (1) state.
That's what I deny. I think Mr. Momper had the point when he spoke about
"the people of the GDR". Maybe, the populations of West and East Germany
could become one people again in case of reunification, actually they are not.
Actually, the young Turk national born here is more my compatriot than
somebody born and grown up in Dresden or Leipzig.
You see that the definition of "the German people" is not that easy.

>If the French are not so numerous, is that our fault? Hardly. If Germany really
>becomes an economic superpower, that will be (um, uh...) deserved, and not
>unjust on anybody. The French (and all the others) have no right to deny us
>our freedom and unity because they are so few! (And their econmy is less
>healthy than ours [West Germany's].

It would be a quite different discussion whether or not economic superio-
rity of industrialized countries is "deserved" at all. I leave that topic
for practical reasons (pls refer to underdevelopment discussion some
weeks ago).
Anyway, I believe that those nations who sacrificed 50 million lives
in defense of their sovereignty and freedom in WWII have a legal right
to interefere into changes of the continental equilibre. Look at what
our government is doing now in the field of economic blackmail against
the GDR people - maybe you can understand concerns of our neighbours.
Btw., as a whole, they are lots more numerous than the Germans and have
a legal right to take part in the determination of the future European
landscape.

>As an aside, it will take years and years for Germany to emerge as an economic
>superpower. Ten or more year's work will go into the now-GDR to get that shit
>(oh, sorry: sh*t) up to Western standards. Only then will we have energy left
>to get an economic giant on the world's markets.

In case of substantial disarmament, there would be enough money to do
that very fast. The GDR is no underdevoloped state at all. They have
qualified workers and scientists, well organized child care and education
and a lot more preconditions for economic growth. IMHO, mainly the
patronizing, illusionary and poorly organized command economy hindered
faster progress, there. Even simply looting out that system leaving
the lower third of population in misery (Reaganist model) would be
a good business.

>>>Third, I believe that socialism is more than the poststalinist dictatorship
>>>of Ulbricht resp Honecker.

>>Ok, just go on believing. It's not forbidden. Fortunatly.
>No, it's not. I believe that too.

Well, maybe we have less differences than it seems :-)

>>>Fourth, the problem of the two military treaty systems remains unsolved.
>>>Absorbing the GDR into a NATO member FRG would mean a kick into the face of
>>>Gorbachew, who encouraged the changes in GDR, an might be intolerable for
>>>the USSR. On the other hand, a neutralization of whole Germany might be
>>>intolerable for the USA and the NATO.

>STOP IT OR I'LL CRY! The Nato is a defensive pact. If we no longer want to
>be defended by them, we can leave NATO, and NO nation with any self-respect
>should even think of stopping us.

Sorry for you :-) . Anyway, the NATO is a pact for defense of capitalism,
without doubt. I'm not that sure that we may easily leave it (it would be
worth while an attempt - reunification or not).

>Yes, I know that does not include the US. But shall we go on being intimidated
>by that hamburger-munching bunch of arrogant s*ckers?

Don't like that statement. I know & like a lot uf US people. But as I under-
stand, you mean we should ignore US govt. pressure when intending e.g.
to leave NATO. Maybe I agree so far, but the US as well have a legal
right to be interested in stability in Europe. Don't forgot that Hitler
concerned them, too.

>Let make me one thing clear: I favour reunification only if the East Germans
>want it too, and I don't see that now. I see a chance to try some democratic
>socialism in the GDR, and I'd hate to see it wasted. If that doesn't work, we
>can still annex them :-) But they should try their way first, and we should
>help them, with no strings attached. Maybe it works.

As stated before, we obviously haven't that much differences. Anyway,
I regard it important to respect the security considerations of a l l
our neighbours - in the East as well as in the West. Don't forget that
- at least theoretically - a reunited Germany might not only be governed
by well-behaving people but by, say a chancellor Waigel, vice-chancellor
Schoenhuber and foreign Minister Czaja. Actually, at least we in West
Berlin are protected against such a nightmare - or even a worse one.
So are our neigbours (more or less). At least the Poles have a neigbou-
ring country which expressively accepted their Western border etc.

>--
> \\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //

Dr. Erhard Sanio, Tempelhofer Damm 194, 1000 Berlin 42, West Berlin

Irek Defee

unread,
Nov 26, 1989, 12:19:38 PM11/26/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>Don't forget that
>- at least theoretically - a reunited Germany might not only be governed
>by well-behaving people but by, say a chancellor Waigel, vice-chancellor
>Schoenhuber and foreign Minister Czaja.

This is a perspective which makes a lot of people in Poland feel
uneasy about the future and why they are not terribly happy about
German reunification. Herr Czaja is a nightmare guy there and his
statements were often used by communist propaganda to justify a
need for total subordination to the Soviet Union.

> Actually,>At lWest


>Berlin are protected against such a nightmare - or even a worse one.

I don't understand this - I thought that there will not be any West
Berlin in reunited Germany but only Berlin, its capital.

>So are our neigbours (more or less). At least the Poles have a neigbou-
>ring country which expressively accepted their Western border etc.

Both FRG and GDR expressively accepted the border, so there is not any
legal problem now. But after reunification tht the problem will start
over again as the right-wing legalists say in FRG. This, and a
perspective of an economic giant with capital only 80 km from the
western border of economically weak Poland makes people there uncertain.

>Dr. Erhard Sanio, Tempelhofer Damm 194, 1000 Berlin 42, West Berlin

Irek De...@tut.fi

Christian Huitema

unread,
Nov 27, 1989, 7:26:54 AM11/27/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP>, sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
> In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
> >In article <17...@laura.UUCP> h...@trillian.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
(Hasko Heinecke) writes:
> >>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
> >>>First, I fear that the equilibre in the mid of Europe may be destroyed by
> >Hey, what is all that crap about? There are about 80 million Germans.
They are
> >ONE (1) people and if they choose so, have the internationally acknowledged
> >right to live in ONE (1) state.
> That's what I deny. I think Mr. Momper had the point when he spoke about
> "the people of the GDR". Maybe, the populations of West and East Germany
> could become one people again in case of reunification, actually they
are not.
> .....

> Anyway, I believe that those nations who sacrificed 50 million lives
> in defense of their sovereignty and freedom in WWII have a legal right
> to interefere into changes of the continental equilibre.

I have seen this figure of 50 millions lives quoted several times in the
debate, and am somewhat surprised by it. Actually, I have the impression
that it includes German deaths as well, my memory recalling me of
something like 25M deaths in the USSR, almost the same in Germany, and
much less in the other countries. The number of French deaths in WW-I,
for one thing, was about three times larger than that of WW-II.

Beside, the assertion that the French are globally opposed to German
reunification is contradicted by both opinion polls, which show about
the same kind of split opinions as the German polls although not for the
same reasons, and by the official statements of the French government,
e.g. the very formal statement of M. Mitterand during a joint press
conference with M. Kohl: that Germans are one people, that they deserve
the right to let state and nation boundaries coincidate, but that one
should indeed ask their opinion to the East-Germans too. The add-on is
that the natural harbour for reunification is the European community,
and that one should avoid to start a war with Russia on that subject...

Christian Huitema

Martin Ibert

unread,
Nov 27, 1989, 12:54:45 PM11/27/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
:In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
:>Hey, what is all that crap about? There are about 80 million Germans. They are

:>ONE (1) people and if they choose so, have the internationally acknowledged
:>right to live in ONE (1) state.
:That's what I deny. I think Mr. Momper had the point when he spoke about
:"the people of the GDR". [...]
:Actually, the young Turk national born here is more my compatriot than

:somebody born and grown up in Dresden or Leipzig.
Hmmm. I see the young Turk as my compatriot (well, not all of them, actually).
But I insist that the residents of the GDR are not a seperate "people".
Although I grant Walter Momper the right to think so. I regard him highly and
despise of anyone wielding the "Grundgesetz" against him on false pretexts.
Info for non-German readers: Momper mentioned the "people of the GDR" in a
speech, and was spanked by the Chancellor Kohl for that. Momper has settled
for the "people in the GDR".) I have talked to quite a few East Germans, and
I really feel they are Germans, just as I am.

:[...] Look at what


:our government is doing now in the field of economic blackmail against

:the GDR people [...]

That is disgusting. First they say "We'll give you money if you make some
reform". The GDR makes a *lot* of reforms, with more underway. Then the FRG
govt says "No you have to have free elections before you get any money." Hey,
whom are they going to vote for right now? Even the opposition says election
should be held be Sep 30, 1990 at the earliest. The opposition needs time to
organize.

:[...] The GDR is no underdevoloped state at all. [...]
Oh yes, it is. Look at their houses, their cars, their factories, their infra-
structure. Close to everything has to be scrapped and re-built.
Decades of mis-management cannot be undone in a year. The people are capable,
knowledgeable, ambitious, just as we are. But everything else is in a shambles.

:Well, maybe we have less differences than it seems :-)
Yes, I think so too. It is just that I don't like false friends.

:Sorry for you :-) . Anyway, the NATO is a pact for defense of capitalism,


:without doubt. I'm not that sure that we may easily leave it (it would be
:worth while an attempt - reunification or not).

Same argument again. Of course I know NATO is there to defend the US security
interest. But the treaty says something entirely different. I wish we could
rub that under the American's (and a couple of other people's) noses and take
them at their word.

:>[...] hamburger-munching bunch of arrogant s*ckers?
:Don't like that statement. I know & like a lot uf US people. But as I under-


:stand, you mean we should ignore US govt. pressure when intending e.g.

:to leave NATO. Maybe I agree so far, but the US as well have a legal
:right to be interested in stability in Europe. [...]

Oh well, I did not mean to insult all Americans. I mean their government and
the other people who think that way. That's by no means all of them.

But I do not think the US have any right to intervene in Europe, or anywhere
else, for that matter. We don't need a big daddy watching over us.

:I regard it important to respect the security considerations of a l l


:our neighbours - in the East as well as in the West.

Yes. We should respect their concerns. But we should resist any pressure they
might use on us.

:Dr. Erhard Sanio, Tempelhofer Damm 194, 1000 Berlin 42, West Berlin

I think we stand to learn quite few things from the people of/in (delete
according to taste and confession) the GDR. We have got the money, but they
have the courage to try something new, something that might work. We all
should combine what each of us has to give.

Martin Ibert

unread,
Nov 27, 1989, 1:06:40 PM11/27/89
to
In article <SIMON.89N...@ram.UUCP> si...@ram.UUCP (Simon Leinen) writes:
(triple quotes written by myself)
: >>My opinion is this: If we (all Germans) want it, let's do it. I
: >>get angry ...
:No, sorry, not ``all Germans'' want it. [...]
I know that. I said "if", and I mean "if". Maybe you should re-read my article
to get the point I was making.

--
\\ . Martin P Ibert, Westendallee 100 d, 1000 Berlin 19, West Germany //
|| |\ /| E-mail mar...@netmbx.UUCP ...!uunet!unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!martini ||

Mike Lyons

unread,
Nov 29, 1989, 7:43:57 AM11/29/89
to
In article <26...@iis.UUCP> hei...@iis.ethz.ch (Gernot Heiser) writes:
>
>There is much less nationalism in Germany than in most other European
>countries.

This isn't a flame, but isn't the above statement simply an unsupported
opinion? What kind of data do you have on the relative levels of nationalism
in Europe?

Peace,
Mike
--
Michael D. Lyons / Nixdorf Computer AG / phone: +49 911 6415 609
Donaustrasse 36 :: D-8500 Nuernberg 60 :: Federal Republic of Germany
EUNET: mi...@nixba.uucp NERV: lyons.nue OTHERWISE: ...unido!nixba!mike
I'd change the world for the better...if I could get my hands on the source code

Mike Lyons

unread,
Nov 29, 1989, 8:07:41 AM11/29/89
to
In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:
>
>Hey, what is all that crap about? There are about 80 million Germans. They are
>ONE (1) people and if they choose so, have the internationally acknowledged
>right to live in ONE (1) state.

this is a bit, shall we say, simplistic. Germany has been incredibly federated
for the entirety of its existence, which makes it difficult (for me anyway :-)
to reliably pin down what actually constitutes the "German People." What is the
ratio of the time during which we can speak of there being a German *state* to
that of the existence of a German *people* ?

>Yes, I know that does not include the US. But shall we go on being intimidated
>by that hamburger-munching bunch of arrogant s*ckers?

hmmm...my what an interesting (and unbigoted) political point you have there.

Mathias Koerber

unread,
Nov 29, 1989, 10:15:54 PM11/29/89
to

As an German expat here in Singapore I have only had a chance to look at the
whole "reunification"-issue from far away. But I strongly believe, that many
people over there in Europe are rushing the topic too much. It will only
stir bad feelings in many people in countries like France,GB,ISRAEL,Poland
etc if the discussion really goes into the direction of a reunification of
Germany as one sovereign country. Besides, I think with all the changes
proposed for Western Europe (EEC), a united Germany that might emerge
even stronger in some years will only be an economical threat to the other
EEC-members, who now already are far behind.
Agreed, it will take quite some time for the Eastern part of a (possibly)
united Germany to get economically as strong as the western part already is.
But then it will be even unfair to the East Germans if big companies take the
chance to "develop" east Germany and on the side earn the big bucks, because
they have the power.
Before any steps in this direction can be taken, I think that on both side
people have to bgin to think about the implications of a united Germany
and its economy. This includes discussions about wages (at the moment those
in East Germany are rather low, so what. Keep them that low to provide
cheap work for the western companies or rise wages and prices in East
Germany to conform with the West standard?? I think all this needs VERY
MUCH TIME to sort out properly.)

And I too see a danger emerging from political circles of people like
Schoenhuber. They only think of their nation (whatever they understand that
is), and not of a realyy peaceful und UNDERSTANDING together of the whole of
Europe and the WORLD. Talking now of a Germany reunified in the borders of
'37 will only make the process more difficult if not impossible for all
parties concerned, as well as it will help to bring all the bad feeling
back which other nations had about Germany before '45.
I only hope that a united Germany will prove to be a peaceful country that
is governed and inhabited by people who wish to live in peace with their neigh-
bours and the rest of the world. I hope some of the Germans could begin to
take on an attitude that lets other people live their lives and who don't want
to impress their opinions on other states. I certainly think, that a government
led by people like Schoenhuber (be it in West Germany or in a united Germany)
will prove to be a menace to others. Then we might see '33-45 again.

--
-Mathias Koerber |Tel: +65 / 7473828 ext 322 |Fax: +65 / 7474331
-Nixdorf Computer Singapore|EUnet: koerber.sin@nixpbe |nerv: koerber.sin
-2 Kallang Sector |uunet: uunet!linus!nixbur!koerber.sin
-Singapore 1334 |[Standard-disclaimer:All views personal... ]

M Smith

unread,
Nov 30, 1989, 6:26:08 AM11/30/89
to
In article <4...@nixba.UUCP> mi...@nixba.UUCP (Mike Lyons) writes:
>In article <26...@iis.UUCP> hei...@iis.ethz.ch (Gernot Heiser) writes:
>>
>>There is much less nationalism in Germany than in most other European
>>countries.
>
>This isn't a flame, but isn't the above statement simply an unsupported
>opinion? What kind of data do you have on the relative levels of nationalism
>in Europe?

I haven't noticed many (if any) other submissions that come with supporting
data, surely the point of this group is for people to voice their
_opinions_ in the hope of creating lively debate.

So please give your opinion, should it be contradictory then all the better
for the debate, but don't be so immediately dismissive of a statement that
was probably based on the feelings one can get from living and working in
more than one country.

--
Mark.

Dr. Sanio

unread,
Dec 4, 1989, 4:44:24 AM12/4/89
to

Look, Matt, that is the kind of debate we don't need at all in this situation.
First, the Russians stole back in 1939 what was stolen by Poland in 1921.
West Ukraine was not original Polish territory, as I remember.
Second, I regard it nonsense to discuss about revising borders, Wales to the
Celts, North America to the Red Indians and Germany for the Neandertal humans.

Whether or not particular borderlines are the best, they exist - and it would
be foolish, if not suicide to touch them.

best regards, es

Dr. Sanio

unread,
Dec 4, 1989, 1:03:06 PM12/4/89
to
In article <3...@mirsa.inria.fr> hui...@jerry.inria.fr (Christian Huitema) writes:
>In article <38...@netmbx.UUCP>, sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
>> .....
>> Anyway, I believe that those nations who sacrificed 50 million lives
>> in defense of their sovereignty and freedom in WWII have a legal right
>> to interefere into changes of the continental equilibre.
>
>I have seen this figure of 50 millions lives quoted several times in the
>debate, and am somewhat surprised by it. Actually, I have the impression
>that it includes German deaths as well, my memory recalling me of
>something like 25M deaths in the USSR, almost the same in Germany, and
>much less in the other countries. The number of French deaths in WW-I,
>for one thing, was about three times larger than that of WW-II.
Sorry, but please recall the figures. German losses in WWII were below
8 mio (fucking lot), as far as I know (This includes losses by evacuation &
expulsion of Germans from Eastern countries at the end of war).
Included the losses by non military genocidal actions of the Nazis (6 mio Jews,
about 3 mio others) you can easily see that the figure isn't exaggerated at all.
Even if it were, I merely hate those stinky retailers arguments about some
100,000 more or less killed. Does that change anything?
Even though French had less fatalities than in WWI, they suffered from Nazi
bestiality for more than 4 years.

>
>Beside, the assertion that the French are globally opposed to German
>reunification is contradicted by both opinion polls, which show about
>the same kind of split opinions as the German polls although not for the
>same reasons, and by the official statements of the French government,
>e.g. the very formal statement of M. Mitterand during a joint press
>conference with M. Kohl: that Germans are one people, that they deserve
>the right to let state and nation boundaries coincidate, but that one
>should indeed ask their opinion to the East-Germans too. The add-on is
>that the natural harbour for reunification is the European community,
>and that one should avoid to start a war with Russia on that subject...
First, Mr. Mitterand is a wizard of diplomacy and politeness - intelligent
(and arrogant) as he might be, he never showed Mr. Kohl what he thought about
him, he simply let him act out his intellectual qualities (I always considered
- and admired - him a little devilish in those situations).
Second, I didn't assert at all the French to be particularly concerned about
"re"uni- fication. I don't believe most people in Europe see a problem, just
now.

But I believe they should - and there are good reasons to be concerned.
And, to be honest, personally I a m concerned about the outlook of a fourth
Reich. The Germania has already caused some attacks against our immigrated
compatriots. Nationalist feelings may increase.
Further on, I like the special status of West Berlin, which makes it a rather
safe place against any right-wing coup - constitutionally legal or not.
Surely, the function of that city will change (and is about to do so) - it
can be a gateway and communication point to changing Eastern Europe.
I would apreciate that rather than a new Reichshauptstadt.
>
>Christian Huitema

regards, es

Ian Macey

unread,
Dec 14, 1989, 12:03:05 PM12/14/89
to
In <8...@athen.sinix.UUCP> e...@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes:
>In <14...@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>>>In <38...@netmbx.UUCP> mar...@netmbx.UUCP (Martin Ibert) writes:

>>>> We should leave the "German" territory east of the Oder-Neisse border
>>>> (Poland's present western border) well alone. The Poles should keep that
>>>> forever.
>>> agreed
>> But Russia still keeps the bits of Poland it stole after
>> collaborating with Hitler?
>
> Look, Matt, that is the kind of debate we don't need at all in this situation

> First, the Russians stole back in 1939 what was stolen by Poland in 1921.
> West Ukraine was not original Polish territory, as I remember.
> Second, I regard it nonsense to discuss about revising borders, Wales to the
> Celts, North America to the Red Indians and Germany for the Neandertal humans

Northern Ireland to the Irish??!

You can't just say "we don't need [debate]" or "I regard it nonsense to
discuss". There's a picture in one of our newspapers today showing East German
nationalists demonstrating, one carrying the German Tricolour with the outline
of the borders of the old Germany painted on it (East, West, and parts of
Poland) and the slogan "Germany, My Fatherland". The fact is that it is a live
issue, therefore it must be debated.

> Whether or not particular borderlines are the best, they exist - and it would
> be foolish, if not suicide to touch them.

Absolutely!! However, the unspoken (amongst polite Europeans) fear is that of a
strong new Germany, united on a tide of new Nationalism and looking once again
beyond it's (present) borders.

As we're unable to stop reunification in the long run, we must trust that the
democratisation imposed upon West Germany after the last War has done it's job
and will now be able to hold back the more extream nationalist elements, which
occur in all countries, not just Germany.


|\\\X\\|\ | Ian Macey Bath, England. (ma...@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\| " the solution to a problem changes the problem "

Nicolai A. Czempin

unread,
Dec 14, 1989, 6:45:48 PM12/14/89
to
I seem to remember hearing that Roman Polanski once said that the only
reason why there were so many Jews in Germany in the 20s/30s was that the
other European countries hated them, and the Germans were actually
comparatively friendly to them. (Up to 33, anyway)

--
Nicolai Czempin
"Nobody survives THE MACHINE"

Michael Schwuchow

unread,
Dec 18, 1989, 11:33:21 AM12/18/89
to
in article: <14...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Nicolai A. Czempin)
writes:

If this is true, is this, because the Germans (we) had to tolerate allready
katholics and (even worse) the reformed church :-) .(As Lutherians of course)

What I mean is: It seems, that Germans don't care much for foreigners or
Jews. Even the [IYFEG]-jokes are about other landers. The unification of
germany seems to me more natural into North- and South-Germany.
North-Germany has same tradition with the Hanse-traderouts, with protestan-
tic religion and good contact to the Skandinavian countries and England.
The South has better contact with Italy, France and landbased tradingroutes.

Maybe only an ethical group different(?) to *all* Germans (like the Jews)
as an "enemy to all" could unify *all* Germans?
(No thanks!)

At least, the jewish inhabitants of Colonia have(had?) a tradition rooting
back to roman empire.

greetings Micha
--
------ now with improved, biodynamic .signature --------------------
! Nickname: michel UUCP: schw...@uniol.UUCP !
! Realname: Michael Schwuchow !
! Position: Oldenburg, FRG EARN: 122685@DOLUNI1 !
------Lieber ein Universaldilettant, als ein Fachidiot--------------

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 19, 1989, 9:34:08 AM12/19/89
to
In article <14...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ai...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Nicolai A. Czempin) writes:

>I seem to remember hearing that Roman Polanski once said that the only
>reason why there were so many Jews in Germany in the 20s/30s was that the
>other European countries hated them, and the Germans were actually
>comparatively friendly to them. (Up to 33, anyway)

?? The number of Jews in Germany before the Holocaust was comparatively
small, I think about half a million. Compared, that is, to the Jewish
community of Eastern Europe.

Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D

unread,
Dec 21, 1989, 6:38:35 AM12/21/89
to
tor...@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

> ?? The number of Jews in Germany before the Holocaust was comparatively
>small, I think about half a million. Compared, that is, to the Jewish
>community of Eastern Europe.

As far as I know, before the Holocaust there lived 7-8 million Jews in Germany.
They made up ~10% of the population!

Oliver

esgibtkeinausgezeichnetesinertialsystemalleinertialsystemesindgleichwertig
|
Oliver Bonten | From inside Germany:
Lehrstuhl D f. Mathematik | mathed@rwthinf
RWTH Aachen |
| From outside Germany:
D-5100 Aachen | F...@DACTH51.bitnet
West-Germany |
|
The above are Institute's accounts, so add a 'to: Oliver Bonten' - line

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 21, 1989, 9:48:01 AM12/21/89
to
In article <19...@rwthinf.UUCP> mat...@rwthinf.UUCP (Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D) writes:

> As far as I know, before the Holocaust there lived 7-8 million Jews in
> Germany. They made up ~10% of the population!

Where did you get this figure? I checked out the source from which I
remembered the figure half a million, a fairly well-known book by Lucy
Dawidowicz called "The War against the Jews". She has an appendix in
which she gives data about the Jewish population in all European
countries before WWII. She says that there were 500 000 Jews in
Germany in 1933 (about 1% of the population); by november 1938 about
150 000 of these had emigrated; as a result of the Kristallnacht another
150 000 emigrated. Poland, on the other hand, had 3.3 million Jews,
about 10% of the population. By the end of the war, 3 million of these
had been killed.

Anne-Marie FOUREL

unread,
Jan 25, 1990, 5:29:21 AM1/25/90
to
Sorry for disturbing the group, this is just a test of PNEWS.

Moses Mason

unread,
May 29, 2011, 7:48:27 AM5/29/11
to
Hope all walls in the world come down


On Friday, November 10, 1989 8:38:49 PM UTC+8, zschoche wrote:
> Berlin den 10 November 1989
>
> Unbelievable!
> Incredible!
> Historic!
>
> As we sit here in West Berlin this morning, we are just discussing the news
> about the wall - its open and may soon be no more!!!!
>
> Amazing sights to see on the way to work this morning - DDR (East German)
> cars on the streets, DDR citizens everywhere, traffic jams near the wall,
> celebrations in the streets the whole night.
>
> A historic day, and one to be celebrate. During the night, not only did
> people cross over via the border crossings, but people also climbed over
> the wall, danced on top of it (yes that's right) and a part of the wall was
> even damaged. Can you picture people dancing on top of the Berlin wall?
>
> Congratulations to the people of East Germany.
>
>
> Gunter Zschoche, Michael Brady, et al
> Nixdorf, Berlin

sick...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 3:54:23 PM7/4/12
to
to be fair we do need some walls.

malte...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 31, 2012, 6:33:47 PM8/31/12
to
Den fredagen den 10:e november 1989 kl. 13:38:49 UTC+1 skrev zschoche:
> Berlin den 10 November 1989
>
> Unbelievable!
> Incredible!
> Historic!
>
> As we sit here in West Berlin this morning, we are just discussing the news
> about the wall - its open and may soon be no more!!!!
>
> Amazing sights to see on the way to work this morning - DDR (East German)
> cars on the streets, DDR citizens everywhere, traffic jams near the wall,
> celebrations in the streets the whole night.
>
> A historic day, and one to be celebrate. During the night, not only did
> people cross over via the border crossings, but people also climbed over
> the wall, danced on top of it (yes that's right) and a part of the wall was
> even damaged. Can you picture people dancing on top of the Berlin wall?
>
> Congratulations to the people of East Germany.

Those are fantastic news from the German capital. I'm so happy, Gunter Zschoche!

/Malte Lewan

nighswand...@ais.at

unread,
Apr 25, 2017, 6:40:51 AM4/25/17
to
On Friday, November 10, 1989 at 9:36:52 AM UTC+1, zschoche wrote:
> Berlin den 10 November 1989
>
> Unbelievable!
> Incredible!
> Historic!
>
> As we sit here in West Berlin this morning, we are just discussing the news
> about the wall - its open and may soon be no more!!!!
>
> Amazing sights to see on the way to work this morning - DDR (East German)
> cars on the streets, DDR citizens everywhere, traffic jams near the wall,
> celebrations in the streets the whole night.
>
> A historic day, and one to be celebrate. During the night, not only did
> people cross over via the border crossings, but people also climbed over
> the wall, danced on top of it (yes that's right) and a part of the wall was
> even damaged. Can you picture people dancing on top of the Berlin wall?
>
> Congratulations to the people of East Germany.
>
>
> Gunter Zschoche, Michael Brady, et al
> Nixdorf, Berlin

Woah, 28 years. Pretty cool to see forum discussion of this.

meicult

unread,
Jul 3, 2017, 9:53:12 AM7/3/17
to
I still couldn`t find any Soviet politics discussion elsewhere, but on archives.
--
meicult <mei...@cock.li>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages