Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Where the wall once stood (tagesspiegel.de)
183 points by mpweiher 11 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 85 comments

missing the most famous view of the wall, next to Brandenburg Gate: https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Wall-at-the-Brande...

Background: today is the day the Berlin wall has been down for as long as it has been up - http://nationalpost.com/news/the-berlin-wall-has-almost-been...

I think I stood in almost that exact spot a few months ago during a trip to Europe. Crazy to think that there used to be a border there.

Berliner Morgenpost published a cool little interactive thing last week where you draw where you think the wall used to be and it tells you how close you were:


(German only, but the headline basically just means "do you know where where the wall divided Berlin?")

I've lived here for a few years, but I found it really challenging myself!

Ah, and they just published some of the resulting drawings:


The most absurd list is exactly what I was hoping they would have

Impressive how many of the buildings are still there and recognisable. Nice to see most of the 30+ year old apartment blocks still standing and well looked after.

Must have been so weird to look out from a high-up apartment on one side of the wall all the way over no-man's-land towards the windows of another block on the other side.

> Impressive how many of the buildings are still there and recognisable. Nice to see most of the 30+ year old apartment blocks still standing and well looked after.

Have you seen many cities where buildings that are merely 30 years old do not exist anymore ?

The situation with older buildings in central Berlin is quite interesting though, because so many quite grand buildings on the eastern side went untouched for 50 years after the war. Then in the late 90s large areas of east-central Berlin were restored at some speed, from bullet-holed crumbling blackened stone to smart painted render in what I assume was something like the original style.

I once wrote a rather personal ramble that touches on this, here https://thebreakfastpost.com/2014/09/23/alte-schonhauser-str... with some pictures taken in 1993 of the area around Hackescher Markt. If you click through on one of the photos, there are a few more on the Flickr set that don't appear in the article.

Thanks for sharing those photos. It's crazy how long Tacheles was in ruins. I was just there in January and there's actually construction breaking ground.

When's the last time you were back in Berlin? Have you seen how Neue Schönhauser Str. has developed?

FYI: The photos are not "side by side." They scroll over to see before and after views.

I didn't immediately realize it. My German is lousy. Etc.

Same for me, although I speak (and am) German. I just thought, "it would be nice if you could move this... oh look, you actually can".

Former canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield took a famous picture from the Internation Space Station that shows how it is still possible to see where the wall separated the city!

Check this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/apr/21/astr...

Pretty awesome, in my opinion :)

This is mostly because street lighting was different. Sodium vapour lamps in the East, mercury-vapour (or perhaps high-pressure sodium-vapour) lamps in the West.

Yes, that's exactly the explanation!

Seems like the wall of concrete has been replaced by a wall of parked cars.

For a very good reason - if you look at the old pictures, you'll often see the pre-1961 sidewalk embedded in the street. The Wall was often build in the middle of streets that had been used as demarcation lines between Soviet and other zones. When the wall came back down, those streets were rebuilt, and so car parking went down exactly along the route of the wall.

You can see this by looking at the ground; modern Berlin marks the route of the wall with a line of bricks in the middle of the pavement. In many of the current pictures, that line runs just between the traffic lanes and the parked cars.

It was more than concrete.

Its amazing how much nicer most European cities have become since the '80s. The wall was one thing, but the general crime, grime and sense of decay was almost as bad.

New York went through the same transformation. It's a "general" culture shift, suburbs went out of fashion for generation X. No sure what the exact underlying dynamic driving it was, but it's happened, as you note, more or less in tandem across Europe and US during the 90s and into the 00s.

Maybe the 1980s Bronx was comparable in terms of deterioration but the "general cultural shift" definitely didn't affect any inner city of Western Europe in the ways which can be seen in the aforementioned videos there.

Quite the opposite: Yes, suburbs flourished, but the appalling differences between East and West prove it has nothing to do with suburbanization.

And the pictures of East German inner cities prove something else: That class differences still existed. Like only government-loyal members of society get to live in Pyongyang, all the Eastern German "white trash" would be found in those inner cities. People with connections had an easier time getting into new High-Rises being built at the city outskirts.

A lot more than the Bronx. Most of NYC, including many parts of downtown Manhattan, the East and West villages, huge swaths of Brooklyn, all have gone through extraordinary changes since their grim, gritty days of the 1980s.

It’s not so much that suburbs went out of fashion. There’s been plenty of growth in suburbs surrounding affluent and growing cities. It’s more that some cities became cool again, many of which were shrinking as late as the 1990s. This is true even of cities like Boston.

I have no sources or data, so big grain of salt, but the dynamic as I heard it referenced was basically that Gen X developed "suburban angst" and sought out the rougher/more authentic life in the cities.

This is not incompatible with suburbs remaining popular in general, they just fell a bit out of favour with a certain culturally influential group.

Five Thirty Eight has run some pieces on this. [1] It's difficult because the best data doesn't track relatively rapidly changing behavior very well. However, one conclusion seems to be that it's mostly a fairly narrow demographic (college-educated Millennials) who are "flocking" (but that's an exaggeration) to a handful of mostly coastal dense urban cores.

Most of the overall urban growth from the census is, in fact, in the suburbs. My 7,000 person town where my neighbors and I split about 100 acres is considered urban by the census.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-millennials-are-les...

Absolutely. The decay was grim. Take Leipzig for example, once one of the trade centers of Germany and what it became after 40 years of socialism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cDOqb53Kfk [1]

And mind you, that when we're speaking about Eastern Europe, we're talking about the more prosperous part of the communist bloc.

[1] granted, WW2 left its mark as well but Western Germany started with the same handicap and didn't turn it's inner cities into Favelas.

> Western Germany started with the same handicap

It depends. Some counter-points:

- Western Germany had all (or at least nearly all) of Germany's supply of black coal, the energy source that powered nearly all of Germany back in the day. East Germany only had brown coal, which has a worse energy density and is more complicated to mine and use e.g. because of the water contained in it. Over the lifespan of the GDR, about 40% of all investments in industry went into the energy sector as they tried to make brown coal more efficient and build nuclear reactors.

- While the Western allies realized fairly early on that it makes more sense for them to integrate West Germany into their political and economical networks, East Germany had to pay huge amounts of reparations to the Soviets. Entire factories and hundreds of kilometers of rail tracks were disassembled and shipped to Russia. [1] That also took decades to recover from.

[1] While motivated by an understandable desire for a payback on the part of the Soviets (who suffered millions of casualties during the war), this was an incredibly stupid move for the Soviets: A lot of those reparations got lost to their "brother countries" through which stuff was shipped to the Soviet Union, and when machines managed to arrive in the Soviet Union, they often lacked qualified personnel to operate them. And, of course, it also reduced competitiveness of the GDR (and, therefore, of the Communist bloc as a whole).

Wow. Finland (which didn’t get occupied and remained nominally neutral) also had to pay hefty war reparations (mostly in the form of heavy machinery) but that had an almost opposite effect: they kickstarted rapid industrialization and economic growth in the hitherto poor, largely agrarian country.

Nominally neutral? They fought the Soviets in alliance with the Nazis! It wasn't until the end of the Winter war they switched sides.

Finland was neutral before, and only worked with Germany after a massive, unprovoked military invasion by Russia and essentially no help from the allies during the entire Winter War.

Nominally neutral in peacetime I meant. Meaning, didn’t become a Soviet vassal, remained a democratic market economy open to the West. In practice we had to make some concessions to the East.

Also, in the Winter War Finland fought alone against the Soviets. During the Continuation War we made an enemy-of-my-enemy sort of pact with the Germans and, in 1944, wiggled out of that agreement and sued for a separate peace treaty with the USSR (as it was becoming clear that the alternative was being run over).

The terms of the treaty dictated that we had to drive remaining German forces out of the country, leading to the Lapland War as the understandably pissed Germans used scorched earth tactics as they retreated from Finnish Lapland to Norway, at the time under Nazi occupation.

They did not have much choice, it was either ally with the germans and receive aid, or get taken over by the USSR.

Inefficiently moving around some resources may have contributed, but that the overall system was inefficient is more to be blamed of course.

Thanks for the link (am Eastern European who grew up in communist Romania in the '80s). It's interesting that the East Germans propaganda songs were pretty similar to Romanian propaganda songs which used to glorify the Communist Party and especially the Ceausescu couple (the most famous propaganda song is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyOMDUyMlPE).

Another example is Stralsund at the baltic sea, it looked unreal with all the decay and soot-tinted houses.


Stralsund is one of the prettier cities I have visited in Germany. Even plattenbau there is not so bad.

I'd take it any day over most parts of West Berlin.

Western Germany got a lot of money from the US to rebuild. I guess you could give capitalism credit for that, but it certainly helped that the US didn't have more than 1000 cities destroyed like the Soviet Union had.

What's the difference? US capitalists built the Soviet industrial base to begin with. There were few things the Soviets could do industrially for themselves, they were extraordinarily incompetent.


That's communism for you right there. Did not someone once project the Eastern Bloc would collapse x-years in the future when communism had eaten up all communal resources and the buildings themselves would not get repaired anymore. Looks like that was the end.

The area on the pictures around the Leuschnerdamm and Bethaniendamm is a really nice area. Rent prices are OK-ish and there is a good balance of cool places / restaurants nearby and just normal housing and families. Just recently moved away from that neighbourhood but kinda miss it.

I've seen so many pictures of the wall in my life, yet I can't remember seeing even one taken from the eastern side. Probably because it would have landed you in jail?

So, two things:

1. The wall was all around West Berlin, separating it from East Berlin and the rest of East Germany.

2. There was a whole wide border defence strip, known as the death strip. The wall was just the inner most ("western") part of it. From West Berlin you could walk right up to it (though sometimes there was a thin strip of East Berlin strictly speaking), but on the outer ("eastern") side there was the considerable "defence in depth" and guards and fences etc. Basically, if you ever stood in front of the wall on the "eastern" side, you were either a border guard or about to be shot.

See pictures here:




EDIT to add:

3. Similarly, there was a 1400 km border between East and West Germany, which was also heavily guarded. It also had a border defence strip on the eastern side, up to 5 km (3 miles) wide, which incidentally turned it into a habitat for endangered species. While this "innerdeutsche Grenze" is less unusual and thus less famous than the Berlin Wall, more people died trying to cross it than at the Wall.

4. The crossings at that border were the stuff of spy movies: East Germany actually installed secret gamma-ray guns to detect people concealed inside vehicles. If someone arose suspicion and tried to flee with their car, there were 6 ton barriers, "Kraftfahrzeugschnellsperren", that could be catapulted across the road using hydraulic rams.

> though sometimes there was a thin strip of East Berlin strictly speaking

There were also secret doors in the wall, and on several occasion people from the western part who ended up on this thin strip adjacent to the wall were "kidnapped" by the stasi to the east and later usually traded for eastern agents captured in the west.


I did seem pretty outlandish to me, but it seems to have happened occasionally: https://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article13519471/Als-ein-w...

A less detailed article in English about the same event: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/03/east-ge...

okay your google-fu seems to be stronger than mine. At least all elements mentioned in the original comment are there even the stasi-IM.

I don't really remember where have I heard about this. It definitely wasn't an article online. It might have been the museum at Bernauer Str.

Here is one (look for the caption "A section of no man's land, marking the border between East (Soviet sector) and West Berlin (American sector), April 1984. (AFP: Joel Robine)") http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-08/25-years-since-the-fal...

Are there no intact bits remaining? Last time I was in Berlin (maybe 10-15 years ago) there were a few places around the city where small sections still stood.

East Side Gallery, Bernauer Straße, a couple of pieces in Postdamer Platz and maybe some other little pieces all around.

Yes, in some parts of the city the wall is still there. In other parts, like where I live, iron beams stick out from the floor to show where the wall used to be. And in other parts, you can't see anything (though you usually don't have to walk far to see some wall-related artwork painted on a wall or something like that)

Is this around Bernauer Str or also somewhere else? I've only ever seen it there.

Yeh exactly

The Topography of Terror has a good portion of original wall on the street in front of it.


On some photos, you can see pavement blocks in the asphalt, where the wall has been. Not sure if it is in all of the length, but it sure is in some places.

Yes, I believe it is most of the length. Very helpful actually, because otherwise it would be hard to figure out where the wall has been as Berlin is changing so much.

To me it didn't look like they tried too hard to take the picture from the same angle etc.

I remember a person from the old West Germany saying to me that they'd like that wall back twice as high and the same depth underground because of all reunification cost and the entitled attitude of 'osties'

Truth is, German Reunification was never an aim of West German politicians until it suddenly appeared as an option at the end of the 1980s. And even then, half of the political spectrum was strongly against it (eg Gerhard Schröder, who later became German Chancellor). Before that, anyone who argued in favor of reunification was eclipsed into the fringe.

Having been bombarded with arguments against reunification for decades by at least one half of the spectrum, will have shaped the views of many. A lot of people felt unease about an American president pushing so visibly for it, as Reagan did.

For the German Easterners it must be said, they were the only "revolutionaries", the only Germans who risked anything and showed courage and actually fought for freedom. Yet, there is almost no official commemoration of it. Partly because many Easterners were part of the system. Partly because the West-German left hated to be reminded of their own amorality.

Thus, "reunification costs" are only a translucent argument. As if the redistribution policies already existing in West-Germany weren't the real culprit why the West-German worker was left so little of his wage and why the job market was stagnating at best for years.

> For the German Easterners it must be said, they were the only "revolutionaries", the only Germans who risked anything and showed courage and actually fought for freedom. Yet, there is almost no official commemoration of it. Partly because many Easterners were part of the system. Partly because the West-German left hated to be reminded of their own amorality.

I don't think you can dismiss Ostalgie (nostalgia for East Germany/democratic socialism) either. There are quite a few people who miss those days, as incredible as it might seem to us who come from countries which don't shoot you if you want to leave. I know some folks who grew up in another Communist country, and they mention that everyone seemed bound up together. They'll admit that materially things are much better now, and sometimes they'll admit that everyone was in bondage together — but most of the time they really do miss what we would consider a repressive state (so bad that they weren't even allowed to speak their native language at home, and had to hide religious artefacts from the secret police).

> Partly because the West-German left hated to be reminded of their own amorality.

What amorality are you talking about?

Being against reunification. Being reminded of the failed experiment across the just deleted border. Being reminded that that failed experiment should have given them some doubts about their doctrines. Being reminded that in the most remarkable story of human progress in contemporary history [1], not only were they not part of the heroes - they were complicit agents in defending the status quo of an unfree Eastern Germany.

Which is why the SPD (with a few exceptions) and the Greens have never set foot in the East as did the conservative CDU.

[1] that remarkable story of course includes the whole of Eastern Europe and that human progress may only be equated to the rise of China (although not politically).

Many of the people who started the protests in East Germany did not have the aim of reunification either. Their goal was to reform and open up the system. Only later when the protests had swelled up in numbers did the slogan of "Wir sind ein Volk" appear.

That is true. Technically, to be precise, it wasn't so much a reunification as it was an annexation. Wanted by the majority of people on both sides of the border.

While I doubt, that anything else than a single Germany would have happened after all - how the reunification came to be could have certainly be different.

But looking at the options that are usually brought up when speaking about "the lost chances" of remaining an independent but free East Germany, the implications are usually so undesirable and unrealistic, that a) those still complaining about it come across as melancholic revanchists and b) the reunification as it happened seems to have been inevitable.

> To me it didn't look like they tried too hard to take the picture from the same angle etc.

And to me it looked pretty spot on. I imagine it's pretty hard to find the exact same position after twenty years.

> I remember a person from the old West Germany saying to me that they'd like that wall back twice as high and the same depth underground because of all reunification cost and the entitled attitude of 'osties'

That sounds like a very selfish person. Freedom for our east german brothers and sisters, unless I have to contribute...

>And to me it looked pretty spot on. I imagine it's pretty hard to find the exact same position after twenty years.

There are digital cameras and laptops. There's really no excuse for not comparing directly and seeing if you got it at least kind of right.

>That sounds like a very selfish person. Freedom for our east german brothers and sisters, unless I have to contribute...

It's not like people were completely opposed to it. But now after so much time has passed we're still paying an extra tax that exclusively benefits the eastern states. And if you read the local newspapers in Eastern Germany you still hear a lot of complaints about "Wessies" (Western Germans). It kind of breeds resentment if you put your hands in someone elses pockets for 28 years, and still complain you're not getting enough. What we need to do is wean the East off of these extra taxes. There are large parts of Western Germany which have just as many unemployment problems, and didn't get any of the infrastructure investments.

> It's not like people were completely opposed to it. But now after so much time has passed we're still paying an extra tax that exclusively benefits the eastern states.

Which tax would that be? If you mean the Solidaritätszuschlag: It isn't actually bound to any task and is used for more or less everything the government wants, not to help East Germany (just like any other tax). It is also payed by people in both West and East Germany.

Just one of the many stupid myths people tell themselves on both sides that breeds sentiment.

Think about the less obvious challenges involved with getting a picture to match up with an older version of the same shot. Simply looking at an old photo does not always tell you much about the lens, focal length and aperture used, or the size of the negative. Without being able to match these with confidence, or even if you know what the match is, you may not be able to procure the necessary equipment to replicate the perspective of the shot taken with it. The old pictures were likely taken by multiple photographers for multiple occasions using a wide variety of camera/glass makes, models and formats, while a modern photojournalist compiling photos for an article will likely have access to a comparably narrow spectrum of equipment.

Also it may not be possible to stand in the same place due to new construction in the position of the old shot.

You'll also find old Eastern Germany people say they want the wall back because they had it better in the DDR. Or at least they think they did.

Known in German as "Ostalgie" ((Ost = east) + (Nostalgie = nostalgia))

They did have it better. Which is why that want to go back.

Edit: or should I rather put it this way:

They have lived in the GDR, and have years of firsthand life experience of what it was like. And they also live in the reunited Germany. And they also have years of firsthand life experience of what that is like.

Why would they prefer the worse option? (hint, they won't) And why would they think the worse option was better, if they have personally experienced both in detail? Who are you to say that what they think is wrong?

That's very common in Eastern Europe, and it's mostly tied to nostalgia, not any rational argument. People liked it better because they were younger, you didn't have immigrants, pesky young people and their facebooks.

It's a similar sentiment to brexiteers, who have a vision of some old England that wasn't actually good.

It sounds to me like people who don't like immigrants, pesky young people and their facebooks did have it better (in their eyes). Whether something is good or not is not objectively measurable, everyone has their own opinion. It doesn't seem outlandish to me that people who were negatively affected by some change would prefer the way things were before, and I don't think you can say that they are wrong to want things to change back.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not endorsing these viewpoints, I just want to point out that the people who hold them aren't stupid or mistaken about the "good old times", they just have a different definition of "good". So from their perspective, revisionism is perfectly justified.

Because "the good old days" maybe? Seems to be a common sentiment among older generations everywhere.

The term "Ostalgie" was coined in 1992. German reunification was in 1990.

It took 2 years to coin a term that described a feeling people had already felt. Not 2 decades.

So I don't agree with your theory at all.

Upvoted because smug dismissiveness of the other side's POV is not only extremely annoying, but counterproductive.

There is no doubt that substantial political and social upheavals, even those which we acknowledge as highly positive in the aggregate, will have some negative effects for some people.

Society develops meticulous legal and social processes for political change to ensure that these balances have been well-considered, despite being forced to acknowledge that we don't have a magic wand that will make the world a place of unanimous equity and unlimited cotton candy.

We dismiss the concerns and sentiments of others at our own peril. Concern and sentiment generally arise from legitimate issues. We can't solve every problem or fix every complaint, but smugly discounting the counter-discourse as the ramblings of idiots and yokels generates a massive liability which always come back to bite. "Those morons are too dumb to not vote against their own best interests" is no different than "those morons are just too dumb to learn the right way to use my program."

If some people believe that their personal balance of plusses and minuses was better under the old order, who are we to tell them that they're just too stupid or naive to understand their own generalized quality of life?

It's a very complicated and multifaceted question, obviously. One data point that sticks in my mind is that after reunification, the birth rate in the east dropped by half.

I'm from the former west, and now live in Berlin (less than a minute walk to one of the photo locations).

The east/west cultural conflict was a thing in the 90s. But today, nobody cares anymore. Berlin, and one or two other large cities in the east have become vibrant centres of culture, attractive to young people from all over Europe. The former east still lags economically. But by and large, the investments helped to catch up, and the economy has been doing well everywhere, making people less anxious about their taxes going to "undeserving" people.

But, of course, history never ends: now we have xenophobes protesting against their taxes helping refugees from Syria. Especially in the former east (go figure). The same dynamic is also playing out in Poland and Hungary: two countries massively profiting from EU membership, with large parts of the population turning their backs on the EU, and the values it stands for.

> The east/west cultural conflict was a thing in the 90s. But today, nobody cares anymore.

Since you live in Berlin, I suggest you take a daytrip to the villages around Berlin, or maybe down to the Lausitz (Cottbus, Hoyerswerda, Bautzen, etc.). You'll find plenty of people who care.

The GDR was an oppressive regime towards its critics, but if you managed to keep your head down, you could live a very stable life there. Upon starting work at 15, you had reasonable confidence that you could work at the same place until retirement if you wanted to. Until, of course, the reunification happened, and large parts of the East-German economy were flushed down the toilet for not many good reasons. Now you have a huge number of people who suddenly have to change jobs every few years to keep themselves afloat, and those (and their children!) are the ones voting for the AfD.

Source: I know some of those people.

> reasonable confidence that you could work at the same place until retirement

based on what? on belief that the wise communist party conquered the laws of economics, history and nature?

Maybe disintegration with plunging into poverty is inevitable and natural end for the "oppressive regimes". Then at least East Germans got it easier than their neighbors to the East thanks to reunification.

> The east/west cultural conflict was a thing in the 90s. But today, nobody cares anymore.

The recent rise of AfD has been fueled by the resentment of the former East [0]. The vote share of the AfD has strong correlations to the east-west divide. It might be worthwhile to understand the reasons behind this pattern.


I met some East Germans in the US in July 1989. I asked them if the wall would come down. They said the prime minister said, "Not in the next 100 years."

100 years vs. 5 months. Pretty close...

Looks like feckin' road engineers had their way with all the land freed up by the removal of the wall. Great!

And now the world want exactly the same for Jerusalem. I find it's crazy.

It is ironic that a country, which reunited after tearing a wall between its people in 1989, had a major role in breaking an almost neighboring country apart, taking part in its destruction and (subsequently) raising walls between people. I am talking about the former Yugoslavia.

A quote from a book "The Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists" (published in 1999) by Martin A. Lee:

(Chapter eight "Shadow over the East", Page 299) Whereas the United States and the rest of the European Community tried to prevent the breakup of Yugoslavia, Bonn unilaterally recognized Croatia as an independent nation at the end of 1991 and twisted arms to get other countries to comply with its wishes. American officials subsequently charged that Bonn was responsible for provoking the crisis in Yugoslavia, which had existed as a single country since 1919, except for the gruesome interlude when Hitler created a Croatian client state.

Reunified Germany’s preemptive diplomatic maneuver led to a major escalation of the civil war in the Balkans, which took hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced more than a million people. Bonn exacerbated the conflict by supplying Croatia with large quantities of weapons. Between 1992 and 1994, Germany exported $320 million of military hardware — including MiG fighter jets, surface-to-air missiles, and late-model tanks — to Croatia, despite a United Nations arms embargo forbidding such commerce. Convoys of up to fifteen hundred military vehicles from former East Germany were discovered en route to the Balkan farrago. Germany also trained Croatian pilots and provided intelligence reports in an effort to vanquish their mutual enemy. Heleno Sano, an expert on German defense issues, commented on the psychological underpinnings of this policy: “In their ‘historic unconscious,’ the Germans have resented the Serbs since World War II, because despite the fact that Hitler sent in thirty divisions, he was unable to defeat the antifascist guerrillas led by Tito.”

Under the auspices of NATO, German warplanes saw action for the first time since 1945, carrying out aerial patrols to prevent Ser­bian fighter jets from flying over Bosnian territory. And when the tide turned in Croatia’s favor in the summer of 1995, Bonn agreed to contribute up to four thousand military personnel to enforce a tenuous peace accord. German intervention was widely depicted in humanitarian terms, but General Klaus Naumann had something else in mind when he lobbied behind the scenes for a wider military role. While some German officials expressed a genuine reluctance to interfere in a place that had been devastated by Hitler, Naumann saw a chance for his men to test their mettle in a combat setting.

Martin. A. Lee: When you thought conspiracy theorists were a specialty of the far-right, the left fringe is always good for a surprise.

Why am I not surprised?

(1) You are a German.

(2) You are advocating for German imperial interests.

(3) "Drang nach Osten" (und Süden) is alive and kicking!

Thus, if anyone interferes with that by quoting facts they are "conspiracy theorists", "heretics", "far-whatever".

Croatia is today, for the second time since the WWII, a German vassal. To "pay" for the German political and military support in the 90ies, they have had to sell everything of value to German interests for peanuts: Most hotels on the Croatian part of the Adria coast are in German hand, Croatian telecom company (actually, a strategic resource for every country) is now "Deutsche Telekom", every Croatian company of value is owned by some German company.

The consequence are a high unemployment and a mass exodus: 300.000, some figures go as far as 500.000, Croats have left Croatia since it became the EU member in 2013 (2017 figures; according to Wikipedia, population estimate for Croatia in 2017 is 4.154.200). Croatian MD's and nurses are in Germany, keeping the German wages low for German hospital owners while German nurses live off of social security (because they don't want to break their backs in 12 hour shifts for chump change). Needless to say, Croatian medical system is in disarray.

And this is only a part of economic woes Croatia goes through. I will not go deep into political woes but name one: Croatia is the only country in the EU and NATO, in which the highest ranking officials (President, cabinet members) (1) attend openly fascistic and nazistic concerts, (2) make a yearly pilgrimage to an Austrian town of Bleiburg where Tito (with the blessing from US and GB) has killed some 90.000 Ustasha (Croats) in 1945, (3) deny the role of the Croat people and their WWII Independent State in the genocide on Serbs, Jews and Roma, (4) actively work (together with the Roman-Catholic church) on rehabilitation of people responsible for those crimes.

One episode is illustrative: End of 2016, in the city of Jasenovac, which is near the concentration camp Jasenovac, Croatian veterans from the 90ties have installed a memorial plaque with words "Za dom spremni!" on it. It is Ustasha greet during WWII, similar to "Sieg Heil" of the German Nazis. Now, as a German, imagine that in the city of Dachau, near former Dachau concentration camp, some veteran group puts a memorial plaque with "Sieg Heil" on it. What would happen? They would be punished at the speed of light while the outcry in the media would be enormous. In Croatia that memorial plaque stood there for almost a year! (it was removed after 10 months in September 2017 and put in the city of Novska, mere 10 km from the old spot)

And what does a "democratic" and "denazified" Germany do while Croatia revives Nazism? It is DEAD silent! Vassal is still needed to do the dirty work (wage a war, any kind of it) for German interests (again: "Drang nach Osten" (und Süden))!

Now that we can understand who you are protecting by accusing others of being "conspiracy theorists" (it took me awhile), one last question: If Martin A. Lee is a "conspiracy theorist", what about New York Times?



You are advocating for German imperial interests

Wait, what now? Where do you get this stuff?

"Drang nach Osten" (und Süden) is alive and kicking!

By my actions? What are you even talking about?

By the sheer amount of words you use, I can see that you put a lot of effort in your reasoning. How about improving your thought by not masking out all the evidence that surrounds you, that neither Germans nor Croatians and other Easterners are all about to revive what the Holocaust hasn't achieved?

You know by assuming that I am

a German.

and thus must be

advocating for German imperial interests

your reasoning has more incommon with the Nazi-Racists than you might want to realize.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact