Another side of the Berlin Wall

[Bolshy]

0

[Ismail]

I shall repost from another thread the July 28, 2011 edition of William Blum's "Anti-Empire Report (http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html)" on the Berlin Wall.

The Berlin Wall — Another Cold War Myth

The Western media will soon be revving up their propaganda motors to solemnize the 50th anniversary of the erecting of the Berlin Wall, August 13, 1961. All the Cold War clichés about The Free World vs. Communist Tyranny will be trotted out and the simple tale of how the wall came to be will be repeated: In 1961, the East Berlin communists built a wall to keep their oppressed citizens from escaping to West Berlin and freedom. Why? Because commies don't like people to be free, to learn the "truth". What other reason could there have been?

First of all, before the wall went up thousands of East Germans had been commuting to the West for jobs each day and then returning to the East in the evening; many others went back and forth for shopping or other reasons. So they were clearly not being held in the East against their will. Why then was the wall built? There were two major reasons:

1) The West was bedeviling the East with a vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals and skilled workers, who had been educated at the expense of the Communist government. This eventually led to a serious labor and production crisis in the East. As one indication of this, the New York Times reported in 1963: "West Berlin suffered economically from the wall by the loss of about 60,000 skilled workmen who had commuted daily from their homes in East Berlin to their places of work in West Berlin." 1 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#note-1)

In 1999, USA Today reported: "When the Berlin Wall crumbled [1989], East Germans imagined a life of freedom where consumer goods were abundant and hardships would fade. Ten years later, a remarkable 51% say they were happier with communism." 2 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#note-2) Earlier polls would likely have shown even more than 51% expressing such a sentiment, for in the ten years many of those who remembered life in East Germany with some fondness had passed away; although even 10 years later, in 2009, the Washington Post could report: "Westerners say they are fed up with the tendency of their eastern counterparts to wax nostalgic about communist times." 3 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#note-3)

It was in the post-unification period that a new Russian and eastern Europe proverb was born: "Everything the Communists said about Communism was a lie, but everything they said about capitalism turned out to be the truth." It should also be noted that the division of Germany into two states in 1949 — setting the stage for 40 years of Cold War hostility — was an American decision, not a Soviet one. 4 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#note-4)

2) During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion against East Germany designed to throw that country's economic and administrative machinery out of gear. The CIA and other US intelligence and military services recruited, equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and individuals, of West and East, to carry out actions which ran the spectrum from juvenile delinquency to terrorism; anything to make life difficult for the East German people and weaken their support of the government; anything to make the commies look bad.

It was a remarkable undertaking. The United States and its agents used explosives, arson, short circuiting, and other methods to damage power stations, shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings, gas stations, public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed freight trains, seriously injuring workers; burned 12 cars of a freight train and destroyed air pressure hoses of others; used acids to damage vital factory machinery; put sand in the turbine of a factory, bringing it to a standstill; set fire to a tile-producing factory; promoted work slow-downs in factories; killed 7,000 cows of a co-operative dairy through poisoning; added soap to powdered milk destined for East German schools; were in possession, when arrested, of a large quantity of the poison cantharidin with which it was planned to produce poisoned cigarettes to kill leading East Germans; set off stink bombs to disrupt political meetings; attempted to disrupt the World Youth Festival in East Berlin by sending out forged invitations, false promises of free bed and board, false notices of cancellations, etc.; carried out attacks on participants with explosives, firebombs, and tire-puncturing equipment; forged and distributed large quantities of food ration cards to cause confusion, shortages and resentment; sent out forged tax notices and other government directives and documents to foster disorganization and inefficiency within industry and unions ... all this and much more. 5 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#note-5)

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, of Washington, DC, conservative coldwarriors, in one of their Cold War International History Project Working Papers (#58, p.9) states: "The open border in Berlin exposed the GDR [East Germany] to massive espionage and subversion and, as the two documents in the appendices show, its closure gave the Communist state greater security."

Throughout the 1950s, the East Germans and the Soviet Union repeatedly lodged complaints with the Soviets' erstwhile allies in the West and with the United Nations about specific sabotage and espionage activities and called for the closure of the offices in West Germany they claimed were responsible, and for which they provided names and addresses. Their complaints fell on deaf ears. Inevitably, the East Germans began to tighten up entry into the country from the West, leading eventually to the infamous Wall. However, even after the wall was built there was regular, albeit limited, legal emigration from east to west. In 1984, for example, East Germany allowed 40,000 people to leave. In 1985, East German newspapers claimed that more than 20,000 former citizens who had settled in the West wanted to return home after becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system. The West German government said that 14,300 East Germans had gone back over the previous 10 years. 6 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#note-6)

Let's also not forget that Eastern Europe became communist because Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism forever, and that the Russians in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World War II the Soviet Union was determined to close down the highway.



New York Times, June 27, 1963, p.12 ↩ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#link-1)
USA Today, October 11, 1999, p.1 ↩ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#link-2)
Washington Post, May 12, 2009; see a similar story November 5, 2009 ↩ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#link-3)
Carolyn Eisenberg, Drawing the Line: The American Decision to Divide Germany, 1944-1949 (1996); or see a concise review of this book by Kai Bird in The Nation, December 16, 1996↩ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#link-4)
See William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, p.400, note 8, for a list of sources for the details of the sabotage and subversion. ↩ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer96.html#link-5)
The Guardian (London), March 7, 1986

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh god that's bloody awful.

Seems to be the standard way that wall-apologists seem to do their work. Talk about the wall, about how bad Capitalism is and how noble the GDR was, and then use the positive welfare and economic achievements of the GDR to somehow justify the wall.

You cannot force Socialism on your people.

Repeat after me:

I must never try to force Socialism upon my people.:rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Considering your username is "El_Granma," I'm pretty sure you'd consider what Cuba does as "forcing Socialism" onto the Cuban people, no?

The point is that West Germany caused the GDR to build the wall in the first place. Don't forget also that until the 70's West Germany didn't even regard the East as its own country, just an illegitimate "Soviet occupation," and West Germany claimed the 1937 borders quite strongly until the 70's as well.

West German electoral propaganda:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/NeverOder-NeisselinevoteCDU.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/WiththeSPDfromBonnoverBerlinforafre.jpg

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't believe Cuba to be Socialist, so your question doesn't really apply. But yeah, my username on an anonymous board doesn't really have much relevance here.

I understand the reasons for the wall being built and, whilst the situation was a conundrum, that doesn't legitimise the wall itself. It should have at least have been put to a referendum, or have been subject to democratic controls.

Whilst the counter-revolution was obviously a pro-Capitalist one, it nevertheless showed that a lot of ordinary people did not like the wall at all. Indeed, there are very few people who have feelings of Ostalgie towards the wall, it's moreso towards the welfare-ist side of the GDR.

[thesadmafioso]

Walling in socialism, what a beautiful gesture of internationalism towards the working class of Germany and beyond indeed. It's almost like a reverse variation of the domino theory, with the socialist GDR seeking to physically defend it's territory from the tangible spread of capitalism.

Not only does it look terrible when you need to wall in your citizenry to prevent immigration, but it shows the impotency of this variation of degenerated political socialism to take hold in developed capitalist societies.

[Imposter Marxist]

The soviets didn't put the wall up, they protested it, actually. The GDR put it up to keep out the Nazi influence, which there was a lot of in West Germany, out of the East.

[thesadmafioso]

The soviets didn't put the wall up, they protested it, actually. The GDR put it up to keep out the Nazi influence, which there was a lot of in West Germany, out of the East.

So they decided revert back to the medieval fortresses and built a wall around West Berlin to protect themselves from capitalism? Well that seems like a perfectly progressive and internationalist focus to adopt then.

[Per Levy]

The soviets didn't put the wall up, they protested it, actually. The GDR put it up to keep out the Nazi influence, which there was a lot of in West Germany, out of the East.

oh please, do you really belive that? it had nothing to do with nazis, this was just the justification. the real reason was that many skilled workers and studied people fled the country through berlin and the gdr put an end to it with the wall.

[Ismail]

I've never heard the "Nazi influence" claim. There were a number of reasons the GDR put the wall up. Obviously the most pressing at the time was the movement of skilled labor into the West, along with Easterners buying Western goods with Eastern currency, but there was also the fact that the West German government did not see the GDR as a legitimate state and attempts all throughout the 1950's to economically sabotage the GDR.

[Per Levy]

I've never heard the "Nazi influence" claim.

well the berlin wall was also called the "antifaschistische schutzwall/antifascist protection wall", so i guess some people take that serious in some way.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Revisiting the Berlin Wall

Published Aug 19, 2011 7:13 AM

Translated from the German daily newspaper "Junge Welt" by WW managing editor John Catalinotto.

On Aug. 13, the corporate media in imperialist Germany used the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Wall to propagandize against communism and the German Democratic Republic.

The GDR had built the wall at a time when Germany and Berlin were divided between a capitalist West and a socialist East. After Hitler’s defeat in World War II — largely at the hands of the Soviet Union, which also suffered the greatest casualties from Nazi aggression — the U.S. had poured billions of dollars into West Germany to rebuild capitalism there.

West Berlin, where many of the capitalist elite were concentrated, was much richer than East Berlin. Nevertheless, the socialist East offered free education and health care to everyone. The wall was built largely to stem an exodus to the West, known as the “brain drain,” of skilled people educated at the expense of the workers’ state.

There are many in the united Germany of today who are not celebrating the fall of the wall and the GDR. Their voices were heard on Aug. 13 when the non-affiliated Marxist German daily newspaper, Junge Welt, ran a front-page article along with a historical photo of army troops of the GDR defending the Brandenburg Gate, one of the entry points between West and East. The headline read, “At this time, all we can say is: Thank you.”

The article went on to give examples of what the GDR had achieved during the 28 years of the wall — much of which was lost once the socialist state was overthrown and the GDR swallowed by West Germany.

The article thanked the GDR for “28 years of peace in Europe” and “28 years without any German soldiers participating in wars.” The united Germany, as a member of NATO, now has armed forces in Afghanistan, parts of the former Yugoslavia and Sudan, as well as off the coasts of the Horn of Africa and Lebanon.

It also thanked the GDR for 28 years without unemployment, homelessness and soup kitchens and for providing education, child care and health care for all “without a consultation fee or two-tier health care.”

Reflecting popular anger at German capital, it thanked the GDR for “28 years without hedge funds and private equity parasites.”

Germany today, like the rest of the capitalist world, is cutting social programs while unemployment grows, especially in the east where workers used to be guaranteed work under socialism. In the land of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, many now know from bitter experience that capitalism can never bring a better life to the majority of the people.
---
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011

28 years of free education, healthcare, no wars and no stock markets =/= 28 years, or even 1 year, of Socialism.

I cannot stress that enough.

It also still does not excuse a tiny group of people enclosing the mass of the population, largely against their will.

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't believe Cuba to be Socialist, so your question doesn't really apply. But yeah, my username on an anonymous board doesn't really have much relevance here.

I understand the reasons for the wall being built and, whilst the situation was a conundrum, that doesn't legitimise the wall itself. It should have at least have been put to a referendum, or have been subject to democratic controls.

Whilst the counter-revolution was obviously a pro-Capitalist one, it nevertheless showed that a lot of ordinary people did not like the wall at all. Indeed, there are very few people who have feelings of Ostalgie towards the wall, it's moreso towards the welfare-ist side of the GDR.

The Wall opened in the course of a rebellion of East German workers vs. the Honecker species of Stalinism. It did not start out as a counterrevolution at all. Rather, the first mass marches, unlike any place else in Eastern Europe, had placards about going back to Leninism, rather than the counterrevolutionary pro-capitalist attitudes you had in Poland in particular.

You even had signs at some of the rallies calling for incorporation of West Germany into East Germany rather than the other way around.

In that context, taking the Wall down was fine, as the East German working class at first wanted to take over the job of defending their workers state away from the Stalinist bureaucracy. So you had the two hundred thousand strong mass march at the Soviet war memorial in Treptow Park a month after the Wall went down, against Nazism, in defense of the Soviet Union, and implicitly against capitalist restoration, which the German Spartacists initiated and which the PDS joined with them in organizing.

This was the biggest mass demonstration that took place in East Germany during the collapse of the GDR, and quite possibly the biggest in Eastern Europe during this period at all. So I think it's a good measure of what was really going on.

Unfortunately, a week afterwards (and not accidentally, as Gorbachev himself has stated), Gorbachev came out for capitalist reunification, the PDS followed suit, and counterrevolution did go on the march, something which the small band of Spartacists in East Germany were unable to halt all by themselves.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

oh please, do you really belive that? it had nothing to do with nazis, this was just the justification. the real reason was that many skilled workers and studied people fled the country through berlin and the gdr put an end to it with the wall.

Yes, the term used back then, when all the trained folk in oppressed countries get sucked into the imperial centers, crippling Third World countries in particular, was "brain drain."

It's a form of imperial oppression, and for a workers state to put a stop to it is justified. You had free education in East Germany, but a trained professional, a petty bourgeois, gets a much bigger income in West Germany. A very bad thing from the point of view of the East German working class.

The Wall, with its barbed wire and guardposts with machine guns, was an extremely bureaucratic and Stalinist solution to this very real problem. But supportable until something better comes along.

-M.H.-

[Delenda Carthago]

Considering your username is "El_Granma," I'm pretty sure you'd consider what Cuba does as "forcing Socialism" onto the Cuban people, no?

The point is that West Germany caused the GDR to build the wall in the first place. Don't forget also that until the 70's West Germany didn't even regard the East as its own country, just an illegitimate "Soviet occupation," and West Germany claimed the 1937 borders quite strongly until the 70's as well.

West German electoral propaganda:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/NeverOder-NeisselinevoteCDU.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/WiththeSPDfromBonnoverBerlinforafre.jpg

You have any right in the world to defend the Berlin Wall if you want to. But please remove the "STALINNNNNNNNNN" under your name, cause you are misusing it.

M-Ls including Stalin were against the division of the two Germanies, they were against the wall and even against the force of socialism upon people. They prefered a peacefull united country even capitalist than this trotskyist monster that only looked socialist on the cell.Matter of fact, the only reason this didnt happened, is because the Westerns thinking that the Soviets would give up on Germany didnt accept Stalin's rule for Germany not to be involved with NATO.

Here you can find something
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/e-dossier-no-15-malenkov-the-german-question-2-june-1953

And maybe here
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/reexamining-soviet-policy-towards-germany-during-the-beria-interregnum

(I am not sure about the second one.I have the texts in greek but I cannot find them all in english)


PS.And this goes for Cuba too

[Ismail]

Stalin supported a united Germany, this is true, but the West obviously had no interest in this. By the time Stalin died Germany was firmly divided.

I know that the KPD/ML (which existed on both sides) called for the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1976, arguing that its construction was an indication of the rise of revisionism and the working-class protesting said revisionism by leaving the country. If you can read German here was their brief thing on it: http://www.kpd-ml.org/doc/aust/1976_berliner_mauer.pdf

It doesn't make their argument correct, though, and I've seen nothing similar from Hoxha.

[Rafiq]

Why is a bourgeois state like the GDR worth supporting, from a working class perspective?

[Ismail]

Why is a bourgeois state like the GDR worth supporting, from a working class perspective?After the 1950's it wasn't much different from Sweden or other "socialist" European countries, so in that sense it wasn't worth supporting.

Before that, though, it represented aspirations for a reunified Germany that would not be a bulwark of NATO.

[RED DAVE]

It's a form of imperial oppression, and for a workers state to put a stop to it is justified.So a workers state has the right to restrict the movement of workers?

Stalinist apologetics really slays me.

RED DAVE

[runequester]

Why is a bourgeois state like the GDR worth supporting, from a working class perspective?

From the ivory tower or from the streets?

[Delenda Carthago]

Why is a bourgeois state like the GDR worth supporting, from a working class perspective?
Because if the conditions are not the proper, socialism cannot be obtained. People did not want a socialist state in Eastern Germany. And they did not wanted a divided country. They were leaving DDR by the hundreds. This was a detraction to socialism and it became very clear very early, with the 1953 workers revolt against the regime.

[00000000000]

On 25/08/97 a court in Berlin sentenced the former East German leader, Egon Krenz, to six-and-a-half years in prison. Krenz was convicted of instigating a shoot-to-kill policy employed by border guards against people trying to flee East Germany.
He was convicted on four specimen charges of incitement to manslaughter relating to people who were shot dead as they tried to escape to West Germany via the Berlin Wall. Around 1,000 people were killed trying to escape to the West after the Berlin Wall went up in 1961.

(Krenz argued that he could not be convicted in the newly reunited Germany because he had been living at the time under the laws of East Germany. But in 1999 a court rejected his case and he began his prison sentence in January 2000.
He later appealed to the European Court of Human Rights but lost.)

Yes, 'protecting the workers' from the Western aggressors indeed. I'm so tired of the 'four legs good, two legs bad' bleeting from those who are stubbornly loyal to the memory of the USSR.
Isn't it possible that both the Soviets AND the USA are/were flawed, oppressive and guilty of crimes against it's citizens and other countries?

[DarkPast]

Because if the conditions are not the proper, socialism cannot be obtained. People did not want a socialist state in Eastern Germany. And they did not wanted a divided country. They were leaving DDR by the hundreds. This was a detraction to socialism and it became very clear very early, with the 1953 workers revolt against the regime.

Are you sure they didn't want a socialist state? From what I gather, a significant number of people miss the East German kindergartens, the full employment, free healthcare and education etc.

I'm by no means an expert on this, but I feel that what people rebelled against was state oppression and lack of political freedom.


Isn't it possible that both the Soviets AND the USA are/were flawed, oppressive and guilty of crimes against it's citizens and other countries?

Aye. But the bourgeois media likes to use the flaws of the USSR as a platform to attack all communists (or even all leftists).

Case in point: Communist symbols are banned in several Eastern European countries.

[00000000000]

Aye. But the bourgeois media likes to use the flaws of the USSR as a platform to attack all communists (or even all leftists).

Case in point: Communist symbols are banned in several Eastern European countries.[/QUOTE]

Fair point

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Are you sure they didn't want a socialist state? From what I gather, a significant number of people miss the East German kindergartens, the full employment, free healthcare and education etc.

I'm by no means an expert on this, but I feel that what people rebelled against was state oppression and lack of political freedom.



Just to clarify, kindergartens, full employment, free healthcare and education are not Socialism. Progressive ideas certainly, and we must point that out, but they can be implemented (as they were in many European Social Democracies in the post-war period) as reforms under a still Capitalist system, that much is clear.

The whole point about the GDR is that, whilst it was certainly progressive in terms of the policies and aspects you mention, it cannot be termed Socialist because the politico-economic system was not controlled by the working class, as is evident by the anti-worker policies of erecting the wall and spying on much of the population against their wishes.

[DarkPast]

In this case I agree with you, but the definition of a "socialist state" isn't so clear-cut. Did the GDR proclaim itself a "socialist state" or did it merely maintain it was working towards building socialism (as per the standard Marxist-Leninist line). Trotskysts would likely call the GDR a "deformed worker's state", seeing as the economy was largely state-owned but there was no worker's democracy. Furthermore, some tendencies (such as council communists and anarchists) would reject the idea od a "socialist state" altogether.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, i'm not talking about Marxism-Leninism here. I'm talking about the base definition of Socialism as defined in Marxist philosophy.

It cannot be a Socialist State, in the Marxian sense, thus according to my previous post. If you want to label it a Socialist State according to some other definition then go ahead but that's not relevant at all to the Marxian debate here.

It cannot be called a workers' state if, as you correctly say, there was no (or little) workers' democracy.

And yeah, I would tend to lean towards rejecting the notion of a Socialist State altogether, though with some reservations, namely that Socialists can, in some instances, legitimately implement progressive reforms a la Cuba without 'losing face', per se.

[Ismail]

In this case I agree with you, but the definition of a "socialist state" isn't so clear-cut. Did the GDR proclaim itself a "socialist state" or did it merely maintain it was working towards building socialism (as per the standard Marxist-Leninist line).As of 1971 the GDR still claimed to be building a "developed socialist society" as you say, but I know that Todor Zhivkov for instance stated in the early 80's that Bulgaria was building communism, which was also claimed to be the case in the USSR as well.

In Albania by contrast socialist construction was already being talked about by 1946 (two years after liberation), and the construction of socialism in the main was declared to be complete by 1976, with further efforts at socialist construction underway. Hoxha criticized Khrushchev for talking of the "construction of communism" in the USSR when the construction of socialism had not yet been completed by the time of Stalin's death.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As of 1971 the GDR still claimed to be building a "developed socialist society" as you say, but I know that Todor Zhivkov for instance stated in the early 80's that Bulgaria was building communism, which was also claimed to be the case in the USSR as well.

In Albania by contrast socialist construction was already being talked about by 1946 (two years after liberation), and the construction of socialism in the main was declared to be complete by 1976, with further efforts at socialist construction underway. Hoxha criticized Khrushchev for talking of the "construction of communism" in the USSR when the construction of socialism had not yet been completed by the time of Stalin's death.

It must surely be a general criticism of all those who claimed, on behalf (and often independently, a la Krushchev) of the people, that these countries in the Eastern Bloc were claiming, at variously different times, to be constructing Socialism or attempting to achieve 'communism'. It must surely be the case that, though obviously the national question means that there will always be uneven economic development in different areas, and different cultural and social issues, that it should not be the case that in one 'bloc', one country should be talking of attempting to achieve communism (Russia) whilst others had either not achieved Socialism (Albania) or, in the case of the GDR, abandoned that motive altogether/partially.

[Delenda Carthago]

Memorandum from Vladimir Semyonov to Vyacheslav Molotov Evaluating the Prospects for a Successful Resolution of the German Question



To Comrade V.M. Molotov


Memorandum on the German Question


I.


The crux of the German question during the post-war period has been the matter of the national reunification of Germany. A struggle between the Soviet Union and the GDR on one side, and the USA, England, France and the Bonn government on the other has occurred concerning this [matter]. Since 1945, the entire post-war policy of the Soviet Government regarding the German question has been built on defending demands for German reunification on a peaceful and democratic basis, and later also on demands for a swift conclusion of a peace treaty, to be followed by the withdrawal of all occupation forces from Germany. This position of the Soviet Government has contributed to uniting the democratic and patriotic forces in Germany and strengthening the influence of the German working class parties among the people.

The most significant recent events pertaining to questions of German unity have been the struggle that unfolded from September 1951 to March 1952 for the so-called all-German conference, as well as the Soviet government’s presentation on 10 March 1952 of the draft Outline for a Peace Treaty with Germany.

The People’s Chamber [Volkskammer] of the GDR came out in September 1951 with a proposal, directed to the West German Bundestag, calling for an all-German conference of representatives of East and West Germany to discuss the question of carrying out free all-German elections to the National Assembly, with the aim of establishing a single, peaceful and democratic Germany, as well as in order to address the question of expediting the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany. The campaign was carried out under a popular German slogan--“Germans at one table.” Supported by the Soviet Government, this campaign, for the first time since 1945, exerted a serious influence on the population of West Germany, strengthening in the German national consciousness a sense of urgency in resolving the question of the national reunification of Germany by their own means. The USA, England and France, as well as the Adenauer government, opposed convening the all-German conference. They declared that they are prepared [to agree to] all-German elections if these are held under international supervision and only after a U.N. commission verifies that the conditions in all of Germany are suitable for carrying out free elections. The three powers were calculating on dragging out the resolution of the issue of elections in this manner and, in the meantime, on completing the preparation of the Bonn and Paris “agreements,” advancing the remilitarization of West Germany, and locking [West Germany] in the North Atlantic bloc. However, this position of the three powers helped to unmask the anti-German character of their policy, and this lent an objectively anti-imperialist character to the movement for convening the all-German conference.

Of even greater influence on the West German inhabitants has been the March 1952 Soviet government presentation of a proposal to speed up the conclusion of the German peace treaty. The Soviet government put forth a draft statute for a peace treaty with Germany, the central idea of which was the demand to reestablish the unity and independence of the German government with a guarantee of its democratic and peaceful nature.

There was a large positive response throughout all of Germany for the proposal included in the draft for the withdrawal of all occupation forces from Germany and permission for it to maintain its own national armed forces, necessary for the defense of the country.

The Soviet proposals in the Outline for a Peace Treaty helped strengthen our influence not only in East Germany, but also in West Germany. They were the ideological-political basis for the civil struggle that has unfolded in West Germany against the Bonn and Paris militaristic “agreements.”

The three Western powers were compelled to come out openly against expediting the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany. They advanced the thesis that working out a peace treaty is possible only with the participation of an all-German government, which must be established by carrying out free all-German elections. However, the three powers surrounded the proposal to carry out such elections with a number of preconditions, most importantly--demands for international verification that the conditions in all of Germany are suitable for carrying out free elections, and for changing the social order in the GDR, where, allegedly, human rights are being violated. Moreover, the speeches of official representatives of the USA and England emphasized that they agree to the unification of Germany, but only on condition that united Germany will be similar to the Bonn republic, and [that] united Germany will be included in the so-called European Defense Community.
By avoiding a decision on the German question on a quadripartite basis in the spirit of the Potsdam treaty, the governments of the USA, England and France organized in March of this year the Bundestag ratification of the enslaving [kabalnykh] Bonn and Paris “treaties.” With these treaties, the three powers have preserved their exclusive right on questions concerning the national reunification of Germany and made German unification conditional upon [the Germans’] entry into the so-called European Defense Community, and, through it, into the Atlantic bloc. The Bonn and Paris “treaties” foresee the extension of the occupation regime in West Germany for 50 years, giving the military authorities of the three powers the right to interfere in West German internal affairs, proclaim martial law, and take upon themselves full governmental authority. In addition, the Bonn and Paris “treaties” envisage a number of West German economic obligations to the three powers. One of the main provisions of the Bonn and Paris “treaties” is the establishment of West German armed forces within the so-called “European Army.”

Since the negative consequences of the Bonn and Paris “treaties” for the inhabitants of West Germany so far have not appeared, the popular movement against these treaties and in defense of German unification on peaceful and democratic foundations is becoming weaker in West Germany, as evidenced by a number of reports from West Germany. Moreover, the old slogans regarding the question of German unification currently do not fully correspond to the changed circumstances, and their mobilizing role has somewhat weakened.
These conditions demand the adoption, on our part, of a number of serious further steps with regard to the German question, the aim of which must be to focus the attention of the entire German people once more on the question of the country’s unification on democratic and peaceful foundations, to counter the plundering, imperialist policy of the three powers toward Germany with the democratic and peaceful policy of the Soviet Union, and to prevent the rise of chauvinistic sentiments in West Germany. Such a gesture by the Soviet government would also be of great international importance.

Specifically, the following is deemed expedient:

a) To put forth a proposal for the formation of the all-German provisional government by the parliaments of the GDR and West Germany, with the goal of the national reunification of Germany by way of free all-German elections without foreign interference.
Such a proposal would once again raise the question--though on a slightly different footing--of the importance of an agreement between the Germans of East and West Germany, since it is impossible to establish an all-German provisional government without such an agreement.

b) In order to insure that the elections are indeed free in all of Germany, to propose the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Germany, shortly after the formation of the all-German provisional government, as well as adopt other measures to prevent the possibility of Germany being utilized for the aggressive goals of any particular power or group of powers.

Such a proposal would help better expose the demagogic character of the proposal put forth by the three powers to carry out free all-German elections. In addition, this proposal for the withdrawal of troops would undermine the position of the occupation forces of the three powers in West Germany, which have been left there for an extended period by the provisions of the Bonn “agreement.” The three powers will probably come out against this Soviet proposal, which, however, answers the desires of all segments of the German population. Our position on this question will remain advantageous, since the proposal for the withdrawal of troops will be coming from us and since Soviet forces will remain in Germany only as a result of the refusal of the three powers to withdraw their forces from West Germany.

It should be noted that until now the Soviet government proposed to withdraw the occupation forces in Germany only during the year following the conclusion of the peace treaty, which under current international conditions is a very remote prospect for the Germans. The new Soviet proposal will put this question before the Germans as a real possibility even for the present time if: a) an agreement is reached between East and West Germany on the formation of the all-German provisional government and if b) the three powers agree to accept this Soviet proposal. Under these circumstances, if the three powers and the Adenauer government reject our proposal, their decision will be accompanied by significant political damage.


II.


Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that the USA, England, and France, as well as the Adenauer government, will in all likelihood reject these new Soviet proposals as well. In order that the German people do not form the impression that the Soviet Government is limiting itself on this occasion only to diplomatic posturing in defense of the national requirements of the German people, a number of measures should be taken to further strengthen friendly relations between the USSR and the GDR and increase the all-German and international prestige of the GDR.
First and foremost, it is necessary to examine the question of the expediency of the Soviet military authorities continuing to maintain control over the democratic organs and organizations of the GDR.

Since 1945, our mutual relations with the people of East Germany can be divided into two phases: a) the phase of military administration (SVAG )--from May 1945 to the formation of the GDR in October 1949; b) the phase of Soviet military organs’ control over the German government organs of power--from October 1949 to the present. However, in recent times the work of the SCC in Germany has essentially consisted of giving aid and consultation to the German organs, through the SED CC, on practical questions of state, administrative, and cultural development. The Socialist Unity Party and the democratic forces in the GDR have by now grown and strengthened [sufficiently] to govern the country independently. Necessary Soviet assistance in the future may be rendered through Soviet advisors and specialists, as is done in other countries of people’s democracy. Moreover, the presence of Soviet forces on GDR territory is a sufficient guarantee of the stability of the people’s democratic order in the Republic. In addition, continuing preservation of Soviet control over GDR affairs has a number of serious negative facets. Because of its form (the SCC), it highlights a sharp inequality in the relationship between the USSR and the GDR, even though eight years have already passed since the end of the war, a people’s democratic order has been established in the Republic, and friendly relations have been established between the Soviet Union and the GDR. The democratic forces in the GDR may perceive the continuing existence of Soviet control over the GDR as an expression of a certain political mistrust on the part of the Soviet government. In addition, with the presence of the SCC, the leadership of the GDR does not feel full responsibility for the country, which retards the advancement of SED cadres.

The removal of Soviet military control over the GDR government organs and the liquidation of the SCC will show to the entire German people that the Soviet government consistently and determinedly pursues the path of providing the German people with sovereign rights, which will further emphasize the enslaving nature of the Bonn and Paris “agreements” that have been forced upon West Germany.

The liquidation of the SCC would also be clear, practical proof of the sincerity of the Soviet government’s proposals on all-German questions.

In addition, it appears expedient to adopt a number of further measures that would lighten the economic burdens of the GDR and create more favorable conditions for socialist development in the GDR.

For the purpose of discussing the aforementioned questions with our German friends, a GDR government delegation should be invited to Moscow for an official visit.


[signature]
(V. Semyonov)
2 May 1953

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=5034FE24-96B6-175C-9EE559B5C0CD66E5&sort=Collection&item=East%20German%20Uprising

[Delenda Carthago]

Memorandum from Lavrentiy Beria to the CPSU CC Presidium regarding Mass Defections from the GDR, 6 May 1953


To the CPSU CC PRESIDIUM

As is known, in recent days the press of the American-English bloc has raised a racket regarding the question of mass defections to West Germany by the inhabitants of the German Democratic Republic.

The empowered representative of the USSR MVD in Germany submits the following information on this question:

During the second half of 1952 and the first quarter of this year the number of defections to West Germany by inhabitants of the GDR has genuinely increased. According to data from the Central administration of the GDR national police, during the first half of 1952, 57,234 people defected to West Germany, during the second half of the year, 78,831 people defected, and during the first quarter of this year, 84,034 people defected. Among those who defected during the first quarter of this year, there were 1,836 members of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany and 1,781 members of the Union of Free German Youth.

According to available data, the increase in the number of defections to the West is explained not only by increased hostile propaganda among the GDR inhabitants carried out by West German organs, but also by the desire of various groups of peasants to avoid entering into agricultural industry cooperatives currently being organized, by fears among the small and middle-size private businessmen that their personal property and assets will be confiscated, by the desire among a number of youth to avoid serving in the GDR armed forces, and by the difficulties experienced in the GDR with regard to the supply food and merchandise available to the inhabitants.

[...]

L. BERIA
“6” May 1953
44/B
Witness: [signature]

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.document&identifier=5034FB65-96B6-175C-9D0A197BE5A3B29A&sort=Collection&item=East%20German%20Uprising