Courtesy of Der Standard, this is an actually interesting interview, even though the journalist conducting it was quite…tonedeaf and impertinent to boot
Very interesting how, these days, communists sound so much more reasonable than defenders of “democracy”. Western oligarchical structures have nowhere to go but toward more totalitarianism and wars. In order for them to survive, which is their number 1 goal, they feel they must destroy everything around them. Hence the destruction of the West, both economic and the genocidal destruction of human life.
So if I understand this correctly, convening a constitutional diet was something all the then active politicians of West Germany feared so much (why?) they rather used base semantics to get out of it?
Apart from shameful and tainting the unification, what could the reason be? A fear of public sentiment demanding demanding public referenda on a new united constitution?
As for the failure of GDR, it was down to three things, and those aren't the first that comes to mind, seeing as they are not very glamorous nor do they glorify the western states and systems:
1) Even before starting to return to USSR, soviet forces dismantled what was left of infrastructure in eastern Germany and transported it to the Motherland. Even such things as railroads and bridges were dismatled, and virtually all factories and an enormous amount of remaining vehicles. This firmly made GDR dependent on USSR which was the intended effect.
2) The authoritarian and totalitarian elements of marxism put into effect as socialism makes it self-defeating: the state must either live with the problems of actively spending resources to combat private business (such as people selling homegrown fruit and vegetables, as was done during Lenin's tenure and which was quickly abolished by rebranding it as a good thing beeing the Party's idea) or allow private industry to create a black market compensating for the failures of planned economy. Neither which is a good way to have an ordered state, nor a functioning economy. Order for the sake of good outcomes, not order for the sake of order, so to speak. Krenz ceetainly knows all this but the interviewer doesn't and thus can't ask the right questions.
3) Depriving the people of simple creature comforts for two stupid reasons: the idea that being exposed to US commercialised culture would make the people turn on the state and the endless didactic attempts to "be equally cool" but in a german communist way. Neither works, both feels insulting an demeaning for both authority and subject, and thus the whole process breeds contempt and rejection. Sweden had a very strong trend of the same thing, and very much so due to our close relationship with the GDR, during the 1960s and 1970s, so this one I know by heart so to speak.
But of course, it feels better for US and british thinkers to claim that it was due to the superiority of their systems they won (and a grater Pyrrhic victory the world has never seen). As a thought experiment, imagine a US where the South rising against Washington DC in 1917-1921 results in them winning a revolutionary war, leading to the immediate and total boycott of them and an active economic war being insitigated by european bankers.
I dare say the US would not have looked much better than the USSR under similar circumstances. A corrupt politburo robbing the people, or robber barns doing it amounts to pretty much the same for John Smith and Ivan Ivanovitj.
Jul 19, 2022·edited Jul 19, 2022Liked by epimetheus
Txs for the long translation, by now. Then I'll add my pov.
But just to give an idea of the hell that USA or UCA (United Criminals of America) want to bring our "peaceful" EU societies, here the last pathetic, psychopath, idiot, squalid level reached by "they use to be americans or they never have been?" :
Very interesting how, these days, communists sound so much more reasonable than defenders of “democracy”. Western oligarchical structures have nowhere to go but toward more totalitarianism and wars. In order for them to survive, which is their number 1 goal, they feel they must destroy everything around them. Hence the destruction of the West, both economic and the genocidal destruction of human life.
So if I understand this correctly, convening a constitutional diet was something all the then active politicians of West Germany feared so much (why?) they rather used base semantics to get out of it?
Apart from shameful and tainting the unification, what could the reason be? A fear of public sentiment demanding demanding public referenda on a new united constitution?
As for the failure of GDR, it was down to three things, and those aren't the first that comes to mind, seeing as they are not very glamorous nor do they glorify the western states and systems:
1) Even before starting to return to USSR, soviet forces dismantled what was left of infrastructure in eastern Germany and transported it to the Motherland. Even such things as railroads and bridges were dismatled, and virtually all factories and an enormous amount of remaining vehicles. This firmly made GDR dependent on USSR which was the intended effect.
2) The authoritarian and totalitarian elements of marxism put into effect as socialism makes it self-defeating: the state must either live with the problems of actively spending resources to combat private business (such as people selling homegrown fruit and vegetables, as was done during Lenin's tenure and which was quickly abolished by rebranding it as a good thing beeing the Party's idea) or allow private industry to create a black market compensating for the failures of planned economy. Neither which is a good way to have an ordered state, nor a functioning economy. Order for the sake of good outcomes, not order for the sake of order, so to speak. Krenz ceetainly knows all this but the interviewer doesn't and thus can't ask the right questions.
3) Depriving the people of simple creature comforts for two stupid reasons: the idea that being exposed to US commercialised culture would make the people turn on the state and the endless didactic attempts to "be equally cool" but in a german communist way. Neither works, both feels insulting an demeaning for both authority and subject, and thus the whole process breeds contempt and rejection. Sweden had a very strong trend of the same thing, and very much so due to our close relationship with the GDR, during the 1960s and 1970s, so this one I know by heart so to speak.
But of course, it feels better for US and british thinkers to claim that it was due to the superiority of their systems they won (and a grater Pyrrhic victory the world has never seen). As a thought experiment, imagine a US where the South rising against Washington DC in 1917-1921 results in them winning a revolutionary war, leading to the immediate and total boycott of them and an active economic war being insitigated by european bankers.
I dare say the US would not have looked much better than the USSR under similar circumstances. A corrupt politburo robbing the people, or robber barns doing it amounts to pretty much the same for John Smith and Ivan Ivanovitj.
Txs for the long translation, by now. Then I'll add my pov.
But just to give an idea of the hell that USA or UCA (United Criminals of America) want to bring our "peaceful" EU societies, here the last pathetic, psychopath, idiot, squalid level reached by "they use to be americans or they never have been?" :
https://mickeyz.substack.com/p/liar-thomas-woman-of-the-year
so june 22nd is the day the invasion of russia by the germans is commemorated in russia.
in poland that would be september 17th, the day the russians invaded poland.....