Could Silesia save DDR?

The DDR was doomed the moment the Russians decided not to interfere in Eastern Europe. Germany was divided ONLY because they lost the war and couldn't stop it. Once there was nothing to stop reunification the artificial division was doomed to fail. There was no compelling reason for the people of the DDR to want to remain separate and Silesia isn't going to change that.

I agree. Now I'm looking at the effects of a modern day Germany with Silesia being a part of it. For that matter, I wonder what a modern day Poland would be like without it.
 
the only thing that can save the DDR is not getting hit with communism.

in 1990 the DDR was not simply poor, it was run down, had uncompetitive industry that had to be dismantled, was the dirtiest country in europe, the infrastructure was next to useless etcetcetc

would there be an instant reunification? having silesia would mean 1/4th more costs. they are already cirppling. once the border is open the people will go west, millions of them.
 
In that matter, is the heavy industrial center in Silesia still relevant in pra-1945 world? Can they make something out of it or it's simply outdated nevertheless?
 
the only thing that can save the DDR is not getting hit with communism.

in 1990 the DDR was not simply poor, it was run down, had uncompetitive industry that had to be dismantled, was the dirtiest country in europe, the infrastructure was next to useless etcetcetc

would there be an instant reunification? having silesia would mean 1/4th more costs. they are already cirppling. once the border is open the people will go west, millions of them.

The problem is that if you have the Russians conquer Eastern Germany it WILL become Communist. If they don't you won't have a DDR in the first place. The Germans didn't split the country the victorious allies did. The East Germans basically saw themselves as Germans not as East Germans. That was the problem, it was never a seperate nationality in that sense.
 
Say Stalin decided that it is better to give DDR the majority of Silesia rather than to Poland. (The rest goes as OTL) Would DDR be able to develop such heavy industrial region into something that could sustain the economy of DDR or match the Ruhrgebiet at some level?

Definitely not. I guess you assume the region of Upper Silesia to be given to the DDR, but that is highly unlikely to happen. Already after WW1, parts of Upper Silesia were given to Poland and as you can see in the map posted, the rest was of Upper Silesia was highly prioritized to become a part of Poland as well.
Lower Silesia, though boasting a nice metropolis with Breslau, was rather average when it comes to the degree of industrialization.

I would also like to point out that Saxony and Thuringia (as well as East-Berlin) were well-industrialized regions...and that didn't help much either. Of course, the North of the DDR is very rural, but so were large parts of the BRD as well, for example Schleswig-Holstein, or most of Bavaria which went a long way for decades to become the economic beacon it is today. Generally, the development of West-Germany was helped by the influx of skilled workers fleeing the DDR from 1945-61.

Of course, Communist countries have a knack for the forced development of heavy industry hubs. But what is more important in the long run: will these be led efficiently or wastefully. In the even longer run: will they lead to ecological dead zones?

###

On the weight between West- and East-Germany. Silesia’s population numbered less than 5 million in 1945. Even in a best-case scenario, the ratio would perhaps be 57 million West-Germans to maybe 22 million East-Germans.

If the DDR had reformed itself when the USSR fell, it could have saved itself with or without Silesia. It really doesn't matter whether or not they have Silesia if they remain Stalinist. It's such an inefficient, useless system by 1989 that it really wouldn't have mattered.

...that means a very short window of opportunity. Having been forced to adopt the Stalinist regime for decades, they would have to jump on the Perestroika bandwagon immediately to reach that much. The situation that the ruling party is riddled with people just waiting to start reforms, as in Poland or Hungary, is simply not given in the GDR where critical people rather search to escape to the other version of their nation.

And even if the SED starts to reform in 1985, I doubt if the state would be salvageable. The economy was far weaker than thought of (though stronger than what remained after the meltdown during re-unification) contemporarily, there was little what can be called national identity of the DDR beyond identification with the system. And once reforms starts, the core problem of freedom of movement will have to be addressed. Once the wall comes down, a continued DDR would be confronted with serious problems facing the West-German labor-market.

The DDR was doomed the moment the Russians decided not to interfere in Eastern Europe. Germany was divided ONLY because they lost the war and couldn't stop it. Once there was nothing to stop reunification the artificial division was doomed to fail. There was no compelling reason for the people of the DDR to want to remain separate and Silesia isn't going to change that.

Indeed, there is little purpose for two democratic, liberal, free-market Germanies within Europe. The shape of the DDR did not create an opportunity to base an identity on a regional one: Saxons for example do not exactly wait to be almaganated with the Brandenburger Prussians.
If there was to be a DDR with a national identity, Stalin would have had to ask for Bavaria... :p
 
Germany was divided ONLY because they lost the war and couldn't stop it. Once there was nothing to stop reunification the artificial division was doomed to fail. There was no compelling reason for the people of the DDR to want to remain separate and Silesia isn't going to change that.

Well no, look at Korea. If you keep a nation split long enough with different standards of living, different official ideology and different influences on culture you can end up with similar but distinct cultures. Granted the German situation is much milder than the Korean one but it could've happened say if the Soviets decided to de-industrialize the DDR.
 
Well no, look at Korea. If you keep a nation split long enough with different standards of living, different official ideology and different influences on culture you can end up with similar but distinct cultures. Granted the German situation is much milder than the Korean one but it could've happened say if the Soviets decided to de-industrialize the DDR.
Not really, I mean the only reason the Korea's haven't united is because North Korea is stuck with a dictatorship for now and also the economic haemorrhaging South Korea would take from uniting with North Korea would be too huge even when North Korea eventually gets rid of its dictatorship.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
I don't think Silesia would make a mayor difference in 1989.

What about a 1944 POD?
The Polish uprising in Warsaw in late 1944 succeeds at least in parts.
Stalin isn't shure enough if he can make Poland part of the Communist Block. So Silesia becomes part ofthe Soviet Occupation Zone rather to be controlled by Poland.
But remember, that Poland keeps the smal part of Silesia it got in 1919, which if I remember right is whrer most of Silesias heavy industry was located.

AND NOW: For my longexisting way to have the Free City of Danzig be a Hong Kong style city, is this possible? Maybe as a Canadian Occupation zone?:eek:
 

OS fan

Banned
So or so, the Communist block would decay and go broke anyway. United Germany would be bigger, but would also have to make more transfer payments for the new area.
 
I don't think Silesia would make a mayor difference in 1989.

What about a 1944 POD?
The Polish uprising in Warsaw in late 1944 succeeds at least in parts.
Stalin isn't shure enough if he can make Poland part of the Communist Block. So Silesia becomes part ofthe Soviet Occupation Zone rather to be controlled by Poland.
But remember, that Poland keeps the smal part of Silesia it got in 1919, which if I remember right is whrer most of Silesias heavy industry was located.

AND NOW: For my longexisting way to have the Free City of Danzig be a Hong Kong style city, is this possible? Maybe as a Canadian Occupation zone?:eek:

The Warsaw Uprising succeeding is a nice thought, but it wouldn't likely happen.

Assuming the Home Army is better supplied with heavy weapons to take on the German tanks before the uprising (given how the Soviets interfered with Western attempts to supply them) and can actually eject the German forces from Warsaw and they can weather the Luftwaffe bombings (I can hardly imagine them getting AA guns and MANPADS didn't exist), the Soviets are not going to leave them alone.

OTL saw the Soviets turning on the Home Army elsewhere in Poland even after the two of them fought together against the Germans. Stalin will manufacture some incident to justify driving the Home Army out of Warsaw--the bad blood between the prewar Polish government and the USSR gives the Soviets' Western amen corner the fig-leaf of plausibility to blame the Home Army for it.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
The Warsaw Uprising succeeding is a nice thought, but it wouldn't likely happen.

I once read an AH story in which Staufenberg is successful, but due to an internal power struggle between Wehrmacht and SS, Germany just pulls out of Warsaw.
Maybe there could be another cause for this. Then its not ASB ;-)
 
Not really, I mean the only reason the Korea's haven't united is because North Korea is stuck with a dictatorship for now and also the economic haemorrhaging South Korea would take from uniting with North Korea would be too huge even when North Korea eventually gets rid of its dictatorship.

Well I beg to differ, the two Koreans are very different culturally now and in another 10-20 years once all the relatives on both sides of the DMZ dies off there wouldn't be a good reason left for reunification. And the cost is a symptom of being separated which only adds to my point that if they are kept separate long enough they will become distinct.

It's like Canada and the UK, similar but distinct.
 
Last edited:
The Warsaw Uprising succeeding is a nice thought, but it wouldn't likely happen.

Assuming the Home Army is better supplied with heavy weapons to take on the German tanks before the uprising (given how the Soviets interfered with Western attempts to supply them) and can actually eject the German forces from Warsaw and they can weather the Luftwaffe bombings (I can hardly imagine them getting AA guns and MANPADS didn't exist), the Soviets are not going to leave them alone.

OTL saw the Soviets turning on the Home Army elsewhere in Poland even after the two of them fought together against the Germans. Stalin will manufacture some incident to justify driving the Home Army out of Warsaw--the bad blood between the prewar Polish government and the USSR gives the Soviets' Western amen corner the fig-leaf of plausibility to blame the Home Army for it.

There's also the fact that the Red Army units near Warsaw wernt ireally n any shape to help the uprising when it started, and the Home Army knew it'd need Soviet help. Even so they didnt care to tell the Soviets about their plans...
 
In David Crew's Consuming Germany in the Cold War, the argument is made that a primary reason for the DDR's rapid absorption/dissolution following the fall of the wall was its inability to reproduce the consumer society being built right on the other side of the Wall. This was due to resource availability (or the lack thereof), relatively (compared to the BRD) low amount of industry/population, and poor management (he cites the curtailing of the New Economic System as a prime example/cause). According to Crew and the contributors, the political repression of the DDR only exacerbated the problems caused by economic mismanagement, and that economics was the primary reason for the DDR so suddenly reuniting with the BRD.

Having Silesia eliminates problems 1 and 2, but does nothing about the economic management strategy of the DDR. It seems that an enlarged DDR just means an enlarged Germany come 1990's. However, a DDR with Silesia may be on slightly more balanced terms with West Germany, which might mean that reunification (which seems, frankly, inevitable) will follow a slightly different path than in OTL. Perhaps more re-organization and build-up of free industry in the East before a formal reunification in the mid-90's?
 
I agree. Now I'm looking at the effects of a modern day Germany with Silesia being a part of it. For that matter, I wonder what a modern day Poland would be like without it.

Smaller. I cannot say that much about Poland besides. However, there would probably less migration from Poland to Germany in the postwar decades- unless Germany changes its policies concerning immigration. OTL, such migration had to be justified by German origins. With a German Silesia, the number of eligible people should be somewhat smaller.

As others pointed out: a more expensive re-unification. Though OTL’s was not crippling (if you think that the whole of West-Germany could enjoy Swiss or Luxemburgian standards of living in a globalized world, I beg to differ), it was not as cheap as Kohl presented it to be. Including Silesia, the whole process might run differently (economically rather than politically) leading to a slower rate of adjustment to West-German standards.
Maybe, with Germany's economic difficulties more pressing, reforms such as the "Hartz-reformen" under Schröder come earlier than in OTL, this might also mean that Kohl's reign ends earlier than in 1998. Rudolf Scharping as Bundeskanzler?

In the BRD, the “Vertriebenen” (expelled) will be a lot less influential. The Schlesier have always been the most vocal and most stubborn organization among them. Silesia being a part of the DDR might also weaken the Sudetendeutsche, as many Germans from Northern Bohemia and Moravia might rather go a few km North instead of hundreds of km Westwards, thus ending up in the DDR (which strongly discouraged "Vertriebenen"-activities).

Silesia itself will probably function nowadays as a bridge between Eastern and Western Europe.

One more things comes to my mind: as a Czech Republic ITTL would almost be surrounded by Germanies, Prague might be less ready to divorce from Slovakia in the 90s.

In David Crew's Consuming Germany in the Cold War, the argument is made that a primary reason for the DDR's rapid absorption/dissolution following the fall of the wall was its inability to reproduce the consumer society being built right on the other side of the Wall. This was due to resource availability (or the lack thereof), relatively (compared to the BRD) low amount of industry/population, and poor management (he cites the curtailing of the New Economic System as a prime example/cause). According to Crew and the contributors, the political repression of the DDR only exacerbated the problems caused by economic mismanagement, and that economics was the primary reason for the DDR so suddenly reuniting with the BRD.

Having Silesia eliminates problems 1 and 2, but does nothing about the economic management strategy of the DDR. It seems that an enlarged DDR just means an enlarged Germany come 1990's. However, a DDR with Silesia may be on slightly more balanced terms with West Germany, which might mean that reunification (which seems, frankly, inevitable) will follow a slightly different path than in OTL. Perhaps more re-organization and build-up of free industry in the East before a formal reunification in the mid-90's?

That sounds like an interesting book! I agree that the economic promises of Kohl's BRD was pivotal in turning the process of re-unification. Very striking is the slogan which appeared in later demonstrations: "Cometh the Deutschmark we shall stay, if it won't come we shall go" [Westwards].

Also, I wouldn't say that by simply adding Silesia problems 1 and 2 vanish (Silesia is not THAT huge in terms of population and industry). The 3rd problem of mismanagement also means (to me) the tendency to "encourage" a brain-drain towards the West.
Also, the German economy works best when it has full access to global markets, as an importer and exporter. That is a basic problem an even larger DDR cannot overcome.

I am sceptical about a slower re-unification. It doesn't exactly make problems smaller. I also do not think that critical decision such as changing the DDR-Mark into the D-Mark at a rate which was suicidal for most of the Easter industry will be changed, as they were anyways decided against economical advice.
 
Also, I wouldn't say that by simply adding Silesia problems 1 and 2 vanish (Silesia is not THAT huge in terms of population and industry). The 3rd problem of mismanagement also means (to me) the tendency to "encourage" a brain-drain towards the West.
Also, the German economy works best when it has full access to global markets, as an importer and exporter. That is a basic problem an even larger DDR cannot overcome.

Very true. Perhaps, then, having Silesia means (in economic terms) that the DDR merely has more cheap/defective items for former East Germans to through out come 1990? Maybe the wait-list for the Trabant is 1 year shorter?

Regardless, it seems like the consensus over the economy is that East Germany's East Bloc orientation and policy of self-sufficiency in a rapidly globalizing economy guarantees reunification?
 
Top