I'm not asking whether people living in the former British sector drink more tea than average, although that would be fascinating.
But were there significant differences in the economic, political, industrial or cultural administrative policies of these areas which persisted? Could we identify which sector a present-day German grew up in, without asking them directly?
I'm trying to narrow my search for "excellent" sources for art historical research and this seems the best place to start. Any suggestions for journals, scholars I should look at, or websites would be greatly appreciated.
Introduction
Throughout its 41 year existence, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) found itself constantly at the center of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall, set up to divide East Berlin from FRG-controlled West Berlin, quickly became the most famous symbol of the conflict. Despite this, most people (including most socialists) know relatively little about this nation; how its economy functioned, what kind of life did it give its people, etc. However, in the light of recent studies finding that 57% of East Germans feel that life was better under socialism (see sources below), many people have grown more curious about this particular country. As such, in this post we will go over various aspects of the GDR in detail.
All sources are listed at the bottom. I will indicate which source I am using whenever I quote from one.
Historical Background and Starting Conditions (WWII and Pre-War Era)
World War II left Germany a shadow of its former self. Cities had been leveled, and the economy had been utterly devastated. East Germany in particular was at a serious disadvantage; it had always been far less industrialized than Western Germany, and as such, it had depended largely upon the West for its economic needs. According the US State Department's study of East Germany:
>Before World War II, the area that later became East Germany was not well developed industrially. Because this area lacked raw materials, heavy industry was generally located in other parts of the German state. Compounding the problems for the newly created East German state in 1949 was the massive destruction World War II of the industrial plant that had existed there and the subsequent Soviet dismantling and removal of factories and equipment that had survived the war. [...] During the interwar years, the territory that is now East Germany was profoundly dependent on external economic ties. In the mid-1930's, it shipped almost half of its total production to the other parts of Germany... This domestic trade featured sales of agricultural products; textiles; products of light industry, such as cameras, typewriters, and optical equipment; and purchases of industrial goods and equipment.
In other words, East Germany depended totally on the West for its heavy industrial needs, and paid for these needs by selling its agricultural and light industrial products. However, after the war, this balance between East and West was thrown off. According to the US State Department's report:
>
... keep reading on reddit β‘The fire started on a former military base used by the Wehrmacht, the Volksarmee and later the German army.
It's been abandoned six years ago, but there is ammunition everywhere so the fire fighters are not allowed to get close to the fires.
More than 1000 people have been evacuated so far and the smoke is about to reach Berlin.
The local fire rescue is desperately asking for help from the State.
The German army is sending additional helicopters to fight the fires, which have reached a couple of villages and small towns.
Oh and also, but just slightly related (the heat in Germany in crazy): there has almost been a complete blackout yesterday, because the electricity need couldn't be met. They had to buy electricity from other countries, which is quite normal, but what isn't normal: the price peaked from 10 Euros /Mwh to more than 38000 Euros!
Because of the heat wave people are using more AC, which the German electricity grid isn't made for.
When trying to discuss measles with vaccine advocates, I find I get a lot of American figures thrown my way. This isn't so much of a problem when it's coming from the Americans, but it really peeves me when it's coming from the British. One of the worse things vaccine advocates do is rely on the scariest estimates (no matter where in the world they have to pluck them from) to try and make a sale.
Using American statistics isn't really fair. It's like using the undeveloped world as an example of how deadly a disease is, I mean Americans really have it bad when it comes to personal care. As far as the bar is concerned in the developed world, medically they're all way down there. We need to use an example of a country which is medically superior to America. We need to refer to a country which doesn't rely on estimates and has kept pretty good records. Let's take a look at Great Britain.
Between 1901 - 1940 all we have is mortality statistics, however, it's claimed that at least 95% of people will get measles by the time they're 15, so working out the supposed morbidity isn't that difficult.
Measles Mortality England & Wales
| Year | Deaths |
|---|---|
| 1901 | 9,019 |
| 1902 | 12,930 |
| 1903 | 9,150 |
| 1904 | 12,306 |
| 1905 | 11,076 |
| 1906 | 9,444 |
| 1907 | 12,625 |
| 1908 | 8,011 |
| 1909 | 12,618 |
| 1910 | 8,302 |
| 1911 | 13,128 |
| 1912 | 12,856 |
| 1913 | 10,644 |
| 1914 | 9,144 |
| 1915 | 16,445 |
| 1916 | 5,413 |
| 1917 | 10,538 (final time >10,000 die from measles) |
| 1918 | 9,787 |
| 1919 | 3,534 |
| 1920 | 7,190 |
| 1921 | 2,241 |
| 1922 | 5,694 |
| 1923 | 5,316 |
| 1924 | 4,834 |
| 1925 | 5,337 |
| 1926 | 3,483 |
| 1927 | 3,622 |
| 1928 | 4,302 |
| 1929 | 3,388 |
| 1930 | 4,188 |
| 1931 | 3,288 |
| 1932 | 3,411 |
| 1933 | 1,937 |
| 1934 | 3,768 |
| 1935 | 1,346 |
| 1936 | 2,751 |
| 1937 | 1,051 |
| 1938 | 1,633 |
| 1939 | 309 |
Not going so bad, so far. From 1940 we get to see reported cases. Take note, this is reported cases, if the trope is true that 95% of us would have caught measles by the time we were 15, then actual morbidity would have to be higher, either based on each year live birth rate or over a 15 year period, than what was reported. This wouldn't affect what was put down as the cause of death though.
| Year | Reported cases | Deaths | M:RC |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | 409,521 | 857 | 1:478 |
| 1941 | 409,715 | 1,145 | 1:358 |
| 1942 | 286,341 | 458 | 1:625 |
| 1943 | 376,104 | 773 | 1:487 |
| 1944 | 158,479 | 243 | 1:652 |
| 1945 | 446,796 | 729 | 1:613 |
| 1946 | 160,402 | 204 | 1:786 |
| 1947 | 393,787 | 644 | 1:611 |
1948 is where the British and the Americans truly separate in terms of medical care when the NHS is born. This is where
... keep reading on reddit β‘
So basically, the main question is, what would be different if instead of a mainly agrarian country becoming communist, a heavily industrialized one went through the revolution.
Marx as a German himself must have believed that the revolution would start there.
Another part of the questions is, how the world would react to a communist Germany ? Russia is the largest country in the world and it barely made through the western powers interventions. Would Germany be able to survive ?
[removed]
)