The Student Room Group

How did Germans react to the Communist reigime?

Interested to find out how a fascist, Nazi state then went from a self proclaimed, communist, internationalist one. How did the German people in east germany react to the change? Did they support/like it? Given that east germany was also very militaristic, it was similar in some ways to the old reigime. did ex nazis prefer the west german government or the east german one? Any sources or information would be much appreciated. Today, east germany is a hotbed of Neo-Nazism. either east germany didn't confront its nazi past sufficiently or it just went unnoticed due to a largely ethnically homogenous population.

I can imagine many Germans would have been humiliated to now being living under a state that was under the control of its invaders. Yet East Germany was inherently more "german" than west germany, and was not particuarly Russified
(edited 4 years ago)
Depends on the German. It definitely wasn't as prosperous as West Germany, but didn't do awfully - they had free healthcare and education as well as 'milk banks' for women who couldn't feed milk to their babies and a lack of unemployment and homelessness. You could see how people hated East Germany though - over 300 thousand people fled from East Germany to the prosperous West Germany before and after the construction of the Wall.
But while economic development in West Germany was higher, the level of social provisions, education, job security, etc. were undeniably better in East Germany. Defectors to the west were mostly professionals such as skilled workers, intelligentsia and doctors, who wanted more profitable careers. West German companies added to this problem by offering ‘bonuses’ (bribes) to people who defected.

Here's something else I found:
Here are some reasons why East Germany was not as wealthy as West Germany:

- East Germany suffered far more damaged during WWII
- The US literally pumped billions of dollars directly into West Germany via the Marshall plan.
- The United States wasn't invaded during WWII and were virtually unscratched, so they were better equipped to help rebuild West Germany.
- East Germany received comparatively little outside aid and had 60% of its total industry expropriated to the USSR as reparations as eastern Europe was basically in ruin.
- The East was historically less developed and less industrialized before the war. Even before WWII East Germany was less developed than West Germany.


Also - of course, most Nazis would've preferred West Germany over East Germany as they were almost the polar opposite of the communists (despite being National SOCIALISTS). Most Nazis fled to other countries such as the US or Argentina though to avoid capture, although many still were captured.

Also - it certainly wasn't humiliating for many Germans to be living under a state under the control of its invaders. As a matter of fact, many of them thanked Joseph Stalin for liberating them from the Nazi Regime (which is shocking because most of us see Stalin as a ruthless evil dictator)! But yes, there would have been people who were humiliated by the occupation of the Soviets since many also disliked the Slavic people as well. These people were usually in the very right-wing and weren't a great number of people. I have met many East Germans from both sides of the political compass who thank Stalin and the Soviets for rescuing them. The Nazi regime was far worse than the Soviet's regime. There are even plenty of Facebook groups which are dedicated to Stalin, who liberated the East Germans from the brutal regime of Hitler.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions please do let me know - I am quite the expert on the Soviet Union and Soviet history!
Original post by Avesta2003
Depends on the German. It definitely wasn't as prosperous as West Germany, but didn't do awfully - they had free healthcare and education as well as 'milk banks' for women who couldn't feed milk to their babies and a lack of unemployment and homelessness. You could see how people hated East Germany though - over 300 thousand people fled from East Germany to the prosperous West Germany before and after the construction of the Wall.
But while economic development in West Germany was higher, the level of social provisions, education, job security, etc. were undeniably better in East Germany. Defectors to the west were mostly professionals such as skilled workers, intelligentsia and doctors, who wanted more profitable careers. West German companies added to this problem by offering ‘bonuses’ (bribes) to people who defected.

Here's something else I found:
Here are some reasons why East Germany was not as wealthy as West Germany:

- East Germany suffered far more damaged during WWII
- The US literally pumped billions of dollars directly into West Germany via the Marshall plan.
- The United States wasn't invaded during WWII and were virtually unscratched, so they were better equipped to help rebuild West Germany.
- East Germany received comparatively little outside aid and had 60% of its total industry expropriated to the USSR as reparations as eastern Europe was basically in ruin.
- The East was historically less developed and less industrialized before the war. Even before WWII East Germany was less developed than West Germany.


Also - of course, most Nazis would've preferred West Germany over East Germany as they were almost the polar opposite of the communists (despite being National SOCIALISTS). Most Nazis fled to other countries such as the US or Argentina though to avoid capture, although many still were captured.

Also - it certainly wasn't humiliating for many Germans to be living under a state under the control of its invaders. As a matter of fact, many of them thanked Joseph Stalin for liberating them from the Nazi Regime (which is shocking because most of us see Stalin as a ruthless evil dictator)! But yes, there would have been people who were humiliated by the occupation of the Soviets since many also disliked the Slavic people as well. These people were usually in the very right-wing and weren't a great number of people. I have met many East Germans from both sides of the political compass who thank Stalin and the Soviets for rescuing them. The Nazi regime was far worse than the Soviet's regime. There are even plenty of Facebook groups which are dedicated to Stalin, who liberated the East Germans from the brutal regime of Hitler.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions please do let me know - I am quite the expert on the Soviet Union and Soviet history!

Hmm, in some ways I thought the old Nazis may have preffered East Germany. I say this because if you look at it, East Germany was certainly more "German" than the West. Take military uniforms, for instance. Whilst most expected East Germany to use standard Soviet uniforms, they basically wore modified Prussian/old Nazi uniforms, with the classic helmets being old Nazi ones that were being tested. Compare this to west germany, which the east frequently used to berate for being an american puppet, through the use of american style uniforms and weapons.

I would have just thought that whilst the Nazis were obviously extremely totolitarian, they were at least, democratically elected, and most Germans were happy to live under the reigime. I understand most people escaping east germany were the wealthy who could be paid more in the west.

I understand why East Germany was poorer, though I don't see the pragmatism in Stalin having 60% off their total industry expropriated to to the USSR. Whilst they did need money to rebuild Eastern Europe, surely it would be more pragmatic to claim that the East Germans were victims of Nazism, and therefore it was a liberation rather than an occupation? Could they have not agreed with the americans to have the west germans pay something? If they hadn't expropriated so much, East Germany could be wealthier and they could have presented the East as an even better alternative to the West.

Also

History coursework - I'm investigating whether in 1924 the Russian people had replaced one authortarian reigime (tsarism) with another (bolshevism/stalinism). Do you have any experience with the book a Penguin History of Russia by Robert Service? Or any other books that may cover the subject. Need different historians interpretations, have already got a few but need more detail.

So...

1) Some historians believe Bolshevism/Stalinismwas better than Tsarism, and that most Russians approved of it
2) Bolshevism/Stalinism was merely a continuation of the old Tsarist era
3) It doesn't matter which ideology, Russia requires an auhtoritarian leader owing to its history under the Mongols and the influence of the Orthodox church etc
Original post by Ferrograd
Hmm, in some ways I thought the old Nazis may have preffered East Germany. I say this because if you look at it, East Germany was certainly more "German" than the West. Take military uniforms, for instance. Whilst most expected East Germany to use standard Soviet uniforms, they basically wore modified Prussian/old Nazi uniforms, with the classic helmets being old Nazi ones that were being tested. Compare this to west germany, which the east frequently used to berate for being an american puppet, through the use of american style uniforms and weapons.

I would have just thought that whilst the Nazis were obviously extremely totolitarian, they were at least, democratically elected, and most Germans were happy to live under the reigime. I understand most people escaping east germany were the wealthy who could be paid more in the west.

I understand why East Germany was poorer, though I don't see the pragmatism in Stalin having 60% off their total industry expropriated to to the USSR. Whilst they did need money to rebuild Eastern Europe, surely it would be more pragmatic to claim that the East Germans were victims of Nazism, and therefore it was a liberation rather than an occupation? Could they have not agreed with the americans to have the west germans pay something? If they hadn't expropriated so much, East Germany could be wealthier and they could have presented the East as an even better alternative to the West.

Also

History coursework - I'm investigating whether in 1924 the Russian people had replaced one authortarian reigime (tsarism) with another (bolshevism/stalinism). Do you have any experience with the book a Penguin History of Russia by Robert Service? Or any other books that may cover the subject. Need different historians interpretations, have already got a few but need more detail.

So...

1) Some historians believe Bolshevism/Stalinismwas better than Tsarism, and that most Russians approved of it
2) Bolshevism/Stalinism was merely a continuation of the old Tsarist era
3) It doesn't matter which ideology, Russia requires an auhtoritarian leader owing to its history under the Mongols and the influence of the Orthodox church etc

First of all, most of the people who fled to West Germany weren't always wealthy - they consist of people such as skilled workers, students and academics. Even just regular citizens of East Germany who weren't wealthy at all would see how well West Germany was doing and would just move there.

Also, just because they wore more uniforms in the East and such doesn't make a nazi like that side more - they were still Slavic people and anti-Slavic racism was an essential component of Nazism - what uniforms each side wore wouldn't really change anything.

I have not read that book - did you want my interpretation or the interpretation of another author?
Original post by Avesta2003
First of all, most of the people who fled to West Germany weren't always wealthy - they consist of people such as skilled workers, students and academics. Even just regular citizens of East Germany who weren't wealthy at all would see how well West Germany was doing and would just move there.

Also, just because they wore more uniforms in the East and such doesn't make a nazi like that side more - they were still Slavic people and anti-Slavic racism was an essential component of Nazism - what uniforms each side wore wouldn't really change anything.

I have not read that book - did you want my interpretation or the interpretation of another author?

Who was still "slavic people"?

In many ways though, East Germany was a paradox because at time it was extremely conservative socially similar to the Nazi reigime, with masculinity embraced, the nuclear family promoted, and homosexuality viewed as contravening the "healthy mores of working people" and a "remenant of bourgeousis decadence". Though they then became quite socially liberal by the 1980s with homosexuality decriminalised in 1968.

I wanted an author's interpretation, but go on, provide your own interpretation
My family fled East Germany for the West and the Stasi have seriously impacted how my grandmother lived her life. Always very nervous to talk about politics and disliked strangers for many years - it took her a while to grow out of it.
Original post by Ferrograd
Interested to find out how a fascist, Nazi state then went from a self proclaimed, communist, internationalist one. How did the German people in east germany react to the change? Did they support/like it? Given that east germany was also very militaristic, it was similar in some ways to the old reigime. did ex nazis prefer the west german government or the east german one?


They were defeated, and some Nazi structures were actually adapted to serve the new regime. Soviet had their ways to manipulate people, especially those starved and tired of war.

Original post by Ferrograd

Any sources or information would be much appreciated. Today, east germany is a hotbed of Neo-Nazism. either east germany didn't confront its nazi past sufficiently or it just went unnoticed due to a largely ethnically homogenous population.


A believe any uni library has at least a couple of books on that.

Original post by Ferrograd

I can imagine many Germans would have been humiliated to now being living under a state that was under the control of its invaders. Yet East Germany was inherently more "german" than west germany, and was not particuarly Russified


Actually Stalin did not attempt to Russify nations outside the USSR, except for the fact that teaching Russian as secondary language was introduced, but this could as well be justified for economic reasons.
It seems that Stalin managed to develop at least some understanding for local conditions, for example he dropped the idea of nationalisation in Poland, many lands and small businesses remained private. Only people who didn't own something or didn't have money post war to buy means for having own business, worked in state companies and state farms.
Original post by Avesta2003


- East Germany suffered far more damaged during WWII
- The US literally pumped billions of dollars directly into West Germany via the Marshall plan.
- The United States wasn't invaded during WWII and were virtually unscratched, so they were better equipped to help rebuild West Germany.
- East Germany received comparatively little outside aid and had 60% of its total industry expropriated to the USSR as reparations as eastern Europe was basically in ruin.
- The East was historically less developed and less industrialized before the war. Even before WWII East Germany was less developed than West Germany.



Those were certainly factors to count, but you're missing the most important factor.
The real-socialism itself.

The economy was centrally planned. Central planists were deciding what goods should be produced in what amount, where should be sent, and at what prices should they be sold.

What most people don't realise, is that price of a product is also an information carrier. When demand is higher than supply, the free market naturally redirects the vectors of sales and increases production, through whole chain of observations and decisions made by retailers, trades, manufacturers and so on.

In real-socialism, prices were decided centrally, so not only the decisions on what to produce, in what quantity, were impaired by the centralisation itself, they were very badly affected by the lack of information on what is demanded and where. This caused endless supply problems in all so-called communist countries.

Another great problem was the policy of full-emplyment. Companies typicalle hired 4 times as much staff as they actually needed, which not only caused obvious unnecessary costs, but backifired with further signifacant problems.

I've read several interviews with directors of factories in communist Poland. They commented that workers were not afraid of losing their jobs. This resulted in lack of dedication to their work, notorious thefts (eg. a single worker in cars factory could steal a set of gauges every day. Security didn't help, as they were bribed with the same stolen parts. A guard or a worker who stole 8 sets of gauges, and sold it on black marked, hand an income equivalent to his monthly salary).
Another problems was notorious alcoholism. Many workers were drunk while working, which didn't help either.
All this skyrocked actual costs of production and had a terrible effect on production quality. Not to mention, the element of initative and creativity was not present at all.
Eg. engineers who saw a need for improvements or a new product, had to argue for months with plannists and politicians
When FSO's engineers wanted to make a small and inexpensive car for the first time, the idea was rejected. They were determined though, they managed to talk to the first secretery of the party and he said: 'Comrades, why would a worker need a car? Where would he drive it?' - Imagine introducing a walkman, or a PC in such conditions.


There were also idiotic social programms, eg. students had to work at factories for a few months to 'get to know with the worker's life'.
One of my lecturers told me about this one. His colleagues went into trouble because of that, as they were sent to brewery and 'too many boxes with beer bottles went missing'. He was sent to car factory, he didn't receive any training and had to weld engine bays. Engines were falling off on road from cars he welded.



You can rebuild a country from a complete ruin just in a couple of decades, just by abolishing market regulations, and introducing very low and simplistic taxes. China has done that. In 1980ies their economy was very backward and people were extremely poor even in comparision to the Eastern Europe communist countries. Right now they're overtaking Eastern Europe in terms of living standards, and the West in terms of economic power.
How has the UK reacted to the Conservative regime.. :colone:
Original post by Ferrograd

I understand why East Germany was poorer, though I don't see the pragmatism in Stalin having 60% off their total industry expropriated to to the USSR. Whilst they did need money to rebuild Eastern Europe, surely it would be more pragmatic to claim that the East Germans were victims of Nazism, and therefore it was a liberation rather than an occupation? Could they have not agreed with the americans to have the west germans pay something? If they hadn't expropriated so much, East Germany could be wealthier and they could have presented the East as an even better alternative to the West.


They did claim that East Germans were victims of Nazism, at least it was a propaganda used to calm down the Poles who came out of the war much stronger than the East Germany, so it was important to make sure Poles don't get too angry about Germany still existing. So the propaganda was generally that the East Germans are peaceful victims, and West Germany is a post-Nazi, historically agressive enemy.

Remember that Stalin didn't have any good idea about economy. He believed that socialism/communism can work, executed war-economy quite well, and he saw the East Germany as future frontline anyway. The typical policy of the Soviet union was suck out as much juice from border countries as possible and be prepared for World War III.

Original post by Ferrograd

1) Some historians believe Bolshevism/Stalinismwas better than Tsarism, and that most Russians approved of it


Well, except for those who were killed in Gulags, or starved to death through economy decisions, this was very true.

In the XIXth century in the UK, a peasant was a free man, working for profit, protected by law, often wearing a tie off work.

In XIX century Russia, peasant was typically an extremely poor de facto slave of his master who could torture or kill him for no reason.
The Soviets got rid of cruel landlords, and gave people access to things like schools, hospitals, many were given a relatively decent place to live for the very first time in their lives.
For peasants and workers, it was generally an improvement.
Original post by Ferrograd
Interested to find out how a fascist, Nazi state then went from a self proclaimed, communist, internationalist one. How did the German people in east germany react to the change? Did they support/like it? Given that east germany was also very militaristic, it was similar in some ways to the old reigime. did ex nazis prefer the west german government or the east german one? Any sources or information would be much appreciated. Today, east germany is a hotbed of Neo-Nazism. either east germany didn't confront its nazi past sufficiently or it just went unnoticed due to a largely ethnically homogenous population.

I can imagine many Germans would have been humiliated to now being living under a state that was under the control of its invaders. Yet East Germany was inherently more "german" than west germany, and was not particuarly Russified

First, to answer the question in the OP, the Berlin Wall only went up in 1961, so before that many used the ability to travel via Berlin to leave the GDR for the West.

Also, 'self-proclaimed' is quite significant in that observation. The GDR held that transitioning to communism was sufficient to rid itself of fascism (as implied by Marx himself), and painted itself as the victim rather than the perpetrator of fascism. The Western Allies made people in the Federal Republic watch videos of concentration camps and accept complicity in the Nazi crimes, whereas the GDR didn't tackle the prejudice within the people, although the East was more thorough than the West in removing people with an association with the Nazi regime from office.

There are other reasons as well why the far-right are bigger in the East than the West. One seems to be a longer-term trend: the Nazis themselves were more popular in that area of Germany as well, and it seems to be correlated with that area having a lot more Protestants than Catholics. (James Hawes covers this tendency over a 2000-year period in his Shortest History of Germany, which is an interpretation to the extreme.) The other reason is that when the GDR collapsed, its industry became unviable essentially overnight, so East Germany had enormous unemployment in the early 1990s. This hasn't really corrected itself, and so it's made East Germans more likely to vote for populist parties of both left (the PDS and then Die Linke, which has direct continuity with the ruling SED in the GDR) and right (the AfD).
Common rambling: "Communism works, it just hasn't been implemented properly, honest!" - hence an inherent flaw, communism is a failed and flawed ideology

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you