How would a modern-day GDR look like if the Cold War had never ended?

[ferdi254]

Yes we had this discussion before but somebody needs to rebut your myths. The growth in the nominal figures was only kept up by the fact that the artificial exchange rate was keot at 1:1 meaning that a Trabi was considered the same value as a Polo.

Kohl in 1989 had two terrible choices. One was to keep the GDR economy alive but that would have meant cutting the Mark down 1:3 which would have kept the industry competitive but would have meant wages on the FRG social aid level or keep wages still seriously below FRG but palatable with a 1:1 exchange rate which would mean a Trabi would still cost 10.000 Mark and would be unsellable as many other goods as well.

And you are right, your numbers are not controversial as they only pass along in leftist fringe circles while the main science has long since moved further.

 

[ferdi254]

And all that is not even discussing the totally worn down infrastructure or the terrible state of the ecology.

 

[ferdi254]

And let us see if we again see arguments trying to justify the wall, the Stasi or somehow trying to deny that the GDR was a dictatorship .

 

[Alexniko]

If that's the case then please present the per capita GDP figures. Frankly you seem to be suggesting that the GDR had a stable thriving economy prior to the Gorbachev reforms, which seems frankly unlikely. This matters because you seem to want to base how a modern GDR would look based on your interpretation of its economic performance, which doesn't seem to match up with the reality of shortages and low living standards portrayed by most sources. You might also want to consider why the population declined during that period.


The article I linked to also covered the 70s and 80s as well, none of it seems to support your proposition, even if you ignore that the root causes of the political upheavals were in no small part economic.

Living standarts in the GDR all in all were considerably lower compared to it's western neighbour, there is no doubt about that. Furthermore GDP growth does not accurately reflect the existing supply of consumer goods. During the 1980s the GDR did suffer from severe economic problems, and they did play a major role in undermining the people’s trust in the government, there can't be any doubt about that either. All I said was that, if the government had it's foreign debt under control by implementing a new economic strategy, the GDR could be a decent place to live today.

As for GDP/pc: Between 1970 and 1989 the GDR's GDP/pc grew by 52.0% – that of the FRG grew by 41.5% in the same timespan (G. Heske, 2005 ; K. Mai, 2006).

Anyway, I think we're talking past each other. I never said that the GDR's economy in the 1980s did great, and I know that GDP growth isn't everything. All I wanted to say is that the overall economic situation was not as bad as it's often claimed to have been.

 

[Lucius Verus]

Living standarts in the GDR all in all were considerably lower compared to it's western neighbour, there is no doubt about that. Furthermore GDP growth does not accurately reflect the existing supply of consumer goods. During the 1980s the GDR did suffer from severe economic problems, and they did play a major role in undermining the people’s trust in the government, there can't be any doubt about that either. All I said was that, if the government had it's foreign debt under control by implementing a new economic strategy, the GDR could be a decent place to live today.

Anyway, I think we're talking past each other. I never said that the GDR's economy in the 1980s did great, and I know that GDP growth isn't everything.

So all your posts implying the GDR was better economically was made satirically?

You went from the GDR is better from select statistics viewed in isolation to the GDR's economy was bad but I have great hopes on them implementing reforms that they failed to do so historically even when faced with dissolution.

How are those two points reconciled?

 

[Alexniko]

So all your posts implying the GDR was better economically was made satirically?

You went from the GDR is better from select statistics viewed in isolation to the GDR's economy was bad but I have great hopes on them implementing reforms that they failed to do so historically even when faced with dissolution.

How are those two points reconciled?

That's literally not what I said. I said that the supply of consumer goods during the 1980s was tense and that foreign debt had reached worrying levels. Yet, still, GDP growth was higher than in the West. That's all I said.

Furthermore, comparing economic performance and comparing living standarts are two very different things.

 

[JohnBull]

I don't want to start a lenghty debate, however at least in regards to the USSR, the GDR and Albania your statement is untrue.

For the case of the GDR (which this thread is about), let me quote an earlier post of mine:

* * *

In 1964 the Central Committee of the SED founded an institute for opinion polling. Between 1964 and 1979 it carried out around 200 surveys among all classes, strata and other population groups in the GDR, and gave the secret results directly to the SED Politburo. The surveys took place mainly in VEB and LPG, but sometimes also in high schools and small-scale private enterprises. In order to guarantee the anonymity of the respondents, the surveys were only conducted in written form. The names of the individual respondents did not appear on the questionnaires, of course. Every year around ten to twelve surveys were carried out with 2.500 to 3.000 subjects each. The employees of the institute were strictly forbidden to influence the subjects in any way, as otherwise the result of the survey could lose its informative value [1]. The sole purpose of the surveys was to give the SED party leadership a realistic picture of the situation in the country. No state has an interest in lying to itself behind closed doors.

In a survey in May / June 1965, when asked "Which social order do you think the future belongs to in all of Germany?", 74.8% of those questioned answered with "The socialist social Order". 5.4% answered "The capitalist social order", while 3.6% answered the question with "Both". 16.2% did not provide any information. The result of the survey confirmed the cross-sectional survey in eight districts of May 1965, in which 78% of the subjects were of the opinion that the future belonged to the socialist order of society in all of Germany [2]. In the early summer of 1970, the following question was asked in a survey: "If you compare the social conditions in the two German states, which social conditions would you prefer?". 67.7% of the subjects answered "GDR", 6.9% answered "FRG", 21.6% answered "I cannot judge", and 3.8% gave no information [3]. When asked, "Do you believe that socialism will also win in West Germany?", 20.0% of those questioned answered in the same year with "Yes, I am quite sure", 31.4% with "I think so". 33.0% with "I doubt it", and 12.2% with "No, this will not happen". 3.4% gave no information [4].

Secret reports from the MfS to the party and state leadership also show that the majority of the population was generally positive about the state and socialism [5].

The Saxon longitudinal study, which is published almost annually, confirms this thesis. Especially the study results from the years 1987 to 1989 are of great interest - the study was of course carried out anonymously. In 1987, 88% of the young people surveyed agreed with the statement "I feel closely connected to the GDR as my socialist fatherland". Although the approval rate for this question fell to 74% in 1988 and 67% in 1989, it still shows that the majority of young people (in this case exemplarily for the population as a whole) supported the existence of the GDR as an independent country. Furthermore, 87% of the respondents agreed with the statement "The future belongs to socialism, despite temporary setbacks" in 1987. In 1988 the number fell to 79% and in 1989 to 63%. These results prove that, despite the falling approval rate, the majority of young people supported socialism as a social system [6].

I would also like to mention the result of the free and secret state elections in the Soviet Zone in 1946. In these elections, the SED won 47.5% of the votes in the area of the entire Soviet Zone. The CDU, which also supported the land reform in the Soviet Zone and advocated a planned economy, received 24.5% of the vote. This result proves that as early as 1946 the absolute majority of the population in the Soviet occupation zone was in favor of socialism, or at least a post-capitalist social order [7].

It can therefore be said with a fair degree of certainty that between 1946 and 1989 (with the possible exception of the years 1952/53) the vast majority of the population by and large supported the policies of the party and state leadership. Even the majority of the opposition (like the "New Forum" and "Democracy Now!") advocated for the reformation of socialism, not it's abolition.


• Sources: •

[1] Heinz Niemann: ,,Meinungsforschung in der DDR - Die geheimen Berichte des Instituts für Meinungsforschung an das Politbüro der SED".

[2] Ibid, p. 34.

[3] Ibid, p. 42.

[4] Ibid, p. 43.

[5] The list of reports in question is very long and covers the entire period between 1953 and 1989. Here are just a few searches from different decades: Bericht O/49, BStU, MfS, ZAIG 4119, Bl. 1–8. ; Bericht O/69a, BStU, MfS, ZAIG
4158, Bl. 42–48. ; Info Nr. 200/61, BStU, MfS, ZAIG 397, Bl. 13–63 (5. Expl.). ; Bericht O/101a, BStU, MfS, ZAIG 4152, Bl. 31–36.

[6] Saxon longitudinal study, 1987 to 1989.

[7] Jörg Roesler: ,,Geschichte der DDR".

* * *

I believe the USSR and Eastern Bloc might have kept going indefinitely.

However, we cannot believe in any public opinion regarding GDR. That's the most efficient police state in history and their inhabitants knew there. It's the most perfect dystopia, with the wall and the machine guns, the athletes poisoned with hormones and Stasi and its 1-2 million collaborators.

And economically, even though doing ok by socialist standards, DDR economy paled in comparison to the Bundesrepublik with all its multinationals making profits all over the globe.

 

[Belisarius II]

I don't want to start a lenghty debate, however at least in regards to the USSR, the GDR and Albania your statement is untrue.

For the case of the GDR (which this thread is about), let me quote an earlier post of mine:

* * *

In 1964 the Central Committee of the SED founded an institute for opinion polling. Between 1964 and 1979 it carried out around 200 surveys among all classes, strata and other population groups in the GDR, and gave the secret results directly to the SED Politburo. The surveys took place mainly in VEB and LPG, but sometimes also in high schools and small-scale private enterprises. In order to guarantee the anonymity of the respondents, the surveys were only conducted in written form. The names of the individual respondents did not appear on the questionnaires, of course. Every year around ten to twelve surveys were carried out with 2.500 to 3.000 subjects each. The employees of the institute were strictly forbidden to influence the subjects in any way, as otherwise the result of the survey could lose its informative value [1]. The sole purpose of the surveys was to give the SED party leadership a realistic picture of the situation in the country. No state has an interest in lying to itself behind closed doors.

In a survey in May / June 1965, when asked "Which social order do you think the future belongs to in all of Germany?", 74.8% of those questioned answered with "The socialist social Order". 5.4% answered "The capitalist social order", while 3.6% answered the question with "Both". 16.2% did not provide any information. The result of the survey confirmed the cross-sectional survey in eight districts of May 1965, in which 78% of the subjects were of the opinion that the future belonged to the socialist order of society in all of Germany [2]. In the early summer of 1970, the following question was asked in a survey: "If you compare the social conditions in the two German states, which social conditions would you prefer?". 67.7% of the subjects answered "GDR", 6.9% answered "FRG", 21.6% answered "I cannot judge", and 3.8% gave no information [3]. When asked, "Do you believe that socialism will also win in West Germany?", 20.0% of those questioned answered in the same year with "Yes, I am quite sure", 31.4% with "I think so". 33.0% with "I doubt it", and 12.2% with "No, this will not happen". 3.4% gave no information [4].

Secret reports from the MfS to the party and state leadership also show that the majority of the population was generally positive about the state and socialism [5].

The Saxon longitudinal study, which is published almost annually, confirms this thesis. Especially the study results from the years 1987 to 1989 are of great interest - the study was of course carried out anonymously. In 1987, 88% of the young people surveyed agreed with the statement "I feel closely connected to the GDR as my socialist fatherland". Although the approval rate for this question fell to 74% in 1988 and 67% in 1989, it still shows that the majority of young people (in this case exemplarily for the population as a whole) supported the existence of the GDR as an independent country. Furthermore, 87% of the respondents agreed with the statement "The future belongs to socialism, despite temporary setbacks" in 1987. In 1988 the number fell to 79% and in 1989 to 63%. These results prove that, despite the falling approval rate, the majority of young people supported socialism as a social system [6].

I would also like to mention the result of the free and secret state elections in the Soviet Zone in 1946. In these elections, the SED won 47.5% of the votes in the area of the entire Soviet Zone. The CDU, which also supported the land reform in the Soviet Zone and advocated a planned economy, received 24.5% of the vote. This result proves that as early as 1946 the absolute majority of the population in the Soviet occupation zone was in favor of socialism, or at least a post-capitalist social order [7].

It can therefore be said with a fair degree of certainty that between 1946 and 1989 (with the possible exception of the years 1952/53) the vast majority of the population by and large supported the policies of the party and state leadership. Even the majority of the opposition (like the "New Forum" and "Democracy Now!") advocated for the reformation of socialism, not it's abolition.


• Sources: •

[1] Heinz Niemann: ,,Meinungsforschung in der DDR - Die geheimen Berichte des Instituts für Meinungsforschung an das Politbüro der SED".

[2] Ibid, p. 34.

[3] Ibid, p. 42.

[4] Ibid, p. 43.

[5] The list of reports in question is very long and covers the entire period between 1953 and 1989. Here are just a few searches from different decades: Bericht O/49, BStU, MfS, ZAIG 4119, Bl. 1–8. ; Bericht O/69a, BStU, MfS, ZAIG
4158, Bl. 42–48. ; Info Nr. 200/61, BStU, MfS, ZAIG 397, Bl. 13–63 (5. Expl.). ; Bericht O/101a, BStU, MfS, ZAIG 4152, Bl. 31–36.

[6] Saxon longitudinal study, 1987 to 1989.

[7] Jörg Roesler: ,,Geschichte der DDR".

* * *

Fascinating. The overwhelming majority of people living in a Police State, where 1/3 of the population had been informants during their lifetime answered in a survey that they supported Socialism. So with the exception of the periods where the population was in open revolt they supported Socialism. This was in a State where the leaders told Gorbachev his reforms would end in revolution, so they were confident that the overwhelming majority of the people wanted Socialism?

So in 1989 why didn't all those Socialists crush the counter revolutionary traitors to the GDR? They still had all the organs of State Power under their command, police, both normal, and secret, the army, Party organs, including and all those young Communist groups, and sundry workers assemblies. So why did the overwhelming power of the Socialist State just melt away? Because underneath the veneer of power it was all rotten to the core. No one was willing to fight for the GDR. Without the Red Army everyone knew it was all over. As Lenin had said on many occasions terror was essential for the survival of a Socialist State.

 

[Belisarius II]

Where does your specific date, 2000, come from?

It's just an educated guess, based on the rate of rot in the Soviet Union. The Soviets were growing weaker relative to the rest of the world. How would an unreformed Soviet State respond to Chernobyl? Would they withdraw from Afghanistan, or keep fighting? Would they agree to nuclear arms arms reduction treaties, or step up defense spending? How would they respond to SDI? How would they respond to Reagan's economic sabotage campaign? The cutting off of credit, and grain sales? The Solidarity Movement in Poland? The rise of Chinese power? The rising Nationalism of the Soviet Republics? The pressures, both internal, and external on the Soviet State would only increase, beyond what happened in the OTL.

 

[ferdi254]

The GDR a decent place to live? Helll the government of the GDR had to built the most expensive and sophisticated border fortifications that were ever built to keep the population in place.

It used in absolute figures more people in the Stasi than the 3rd Reich employed in the Gestapo.

it killed not only on the border by the hundreds, it also killed by the thousand people whom they deemed counterrevolutionaires. It had no quiver to use torture and to imprison thousands.

All this was mitigated for a large part of the population by bringimg the standard of living up to FRG social aid by taking in ever bigger loans. If one would stop that the GDP and the standard of living would have tanked.

The only thing keeping that dictatorship alive was the red army.

And one more time, those figures are wrong. To enable that growth the FRG had had to invest billions in the infrastructure. The GDR was basically working with the 1950 infrastructure. And if the GDP growth was so much higher why was the standard of living so much worse?

 

[Garrison]

Anyway, I think we're talking past each other. I never said that the GDR's economy in the 1980s did great, and I know that GDP growth isn't everything. All I wanted to say is that the overall economic situation was not as bad as it's often claimed to have been.

No not talking past one another because I understood that was your claim and I fundamentally believe its a flawed claim for all the reason s others have pointed out. You are using dubious growth figures and ignoring the simple reality of an oppressive state where production figures were massaged for the sake of propaganda. If the GDR had somehow lumbered on past 1989 it would have seen the gap in living standards between itself and the FRG becoming ever wider and without economic reforms the declining economy of the USSR will mean less ability to prop up failing states like the GDR. So it will be either reform or collapse. Gorbachev's reforms were a recognition of the problems but came too late. Postponing them won't make things better, especially as the GDR struggles with aging infrastructure.

 

[HelloThere]

Without loans by the USSR, the GDR is toast. And that's the reason why the GDR probably would not survive into the year 2000, without big structural changes in the 60's:
The USSR always could put a price tag on it and get paid to allow it's demise. Why shouldn't it do that? Germany was at least ready to pay 100 Billion Mark, that's a lot of money for rebuilding the Soviet Union that is not wasted on propping up an unpopular dictatorship.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

How do you think would politics and culture develope? Is further immigration from countries like Angola, Mozambique, Cuba and Vietnam likely in order to counter the shortage of labour?

There's still Vietnamese people in the former DDR, who came over before 1989. They tend to work in independent retail, takeaway food, cheap clothes shops etc. (at least in my experience).

The big thing would be the existence of a large-German speaking population, with the Second World War still part of the living memory, who do not feel collective responsible for the Shoah. What the consequences of that might be, I don't know, but I doubt if they'd all be good.

 

[pattersonautobody]

I enjoyed reading this thread. In reality, the GDR was the jewel of the Eastern Bloc. It still was not doing that well. If it persisted, chances are that it would remain as such, stunted relative to the rest of the world. It can persist as long as the USSR does, but it requires the USSR investing less in air craft carriers, space shuttles, and expensive stuff, and simply retaining a large land army.

 

[Lautréamont]

Fascinating. The overwhelming majority of people living in a Police State, where 1/3 of the population had been informants during their lifetime answered in a survey that they supported Socialism. So with the exception of the periods where the population was in open revolt they supported Socialism. This was in a State where the leaders told Gorbachev his reforms would end in revolution, so they were confident that the overwhelming majority of the people wanted Socialism?

So in 1989 why didn't all those Socialists crush the counter revolutionary traitors to the GDR? They still had all the organs of State Power under their command, police, both normal, and secret, the army, Party organs, including and all those young Communist groups, and sundry workers assemblies. So why did the overwhelming power of the Socialist State just melt away? Because underneath the veneer of power it was all rotten to the core. No one was willing to fight for the GDR. Without the Red Army everyone knew it was all over. As Lenin had said on many occasions terror was essential for the survival of a Socialist State.

But historical events don't contradict the polls' claims that a majority supported socialism and GDR independence. Back in 1989, many of the "counter-revolutionary traitors" hated the SED regime but did not hate everything it stood for. Those guys genuinely believed in Gorbachev's ideas, glasnost, perestroika and stuff. They believed in a democratic socialist, independent GDR. They wanted Stasi to go, they wanted the Wall to go, they wanted rule by the people as opposed to rule by party committee, but they didn't necessarily want capitalism and reunification.

Later on, radical views - that is, pro-capitalist and pro-reunification views - won the revolution. Ironically, this mirrors how Kerensky failed and radical views won the Russian Revolution.

But that doesn't mean that socialism - whatever that word means - is discredited altogether in East Germany. If it was, one of 1989 SED's Gorbachevite wing's leading figures wouldn't have been able to win a Bundestag constituency seat in 2021.

 

[Belisarius II]

But historical events don't contradict the polls' claims that a majority supported socialism and GDR independence. Back in 1989, many of the "counter-revolutionary traitors" hated the SED regime but did not hate everything it stood for. Those guys genuinely believed in Gorbachev's ideas, glasnost, perestroika and stuff. They believed in a democratic socialist, independent GDR. They wanted Stasi to go, they wanted the Wall to go, they wanted rule by the people as opposed to rule by party committee, but they didn't necessarily want capitalism and reunification.

Later on, radical views - that is, pro-capitalist and pro-reunification views - won the revolution. Ironically, this mirrors how Kerensky failed and radical views won the Russian Revolution.

But that doesn't mean that socialism - whatever that word means - is discredited altogether in East Germany. If it was, one of 1989 SED's Gorbachevite wing's leading figures wouldn't have been able to win a Bundestag constituency seat in 2021.

People often hold wildly inconsistent ideas in their heads. Gorbachev's critics were right, and so was Lenin. A Socialist State couldn't survive without terror, and a monopoly of power for the Communist Party. A Liberal Welfare State can, and does work in a multi party framework, with human rights. 40 years of Communism left the east so far behind the West that reunification left many in the East unable to catchup. Like the post Civil War South being much poorer then the rest of the U.S. reunification was hard on many people. However very few people would want the GDR back. Just imagine the difficulties of trying to reunify Korea. The DPRK is such a failed State it would take generations for the ROK to build it up to an acceptable standard. The Damage Communism left in it's wake will take many generations to repair.

 

[Deleted member 2186]

There's a scenario I read how the GDR survives past 1989 which culminates into a war with NATO by 1995.

People's War | alternate-timelines.com

PEOPLE’S WAR – EAST GERMANY, 1995 One – Temporary closure At the end of June 1989, the East German government decided to close the country’s external borders

alternate-timelines.com

Going back to the scenario, the GDR would probably be like Belarus, Russia, or China today.

There is also the TL called the Last War where a East Germany survives until 2005 before World War III starts.

The Last War

 

[Ijon Tichy]

But historical events don't contradict the polls' claims that a majority supported socialism and GDR independence. Back in 1989, many of the "counter-revolutionary traitors" hated the SED regime but did not hate everything it stood for. Those guys genuinely believed in Gorbachev's ideas, glasnost, perestroika and stuff. They believed in a democratic socialist, independent GDR. They wanted Stasi to go, they wanted the Wall to go, they wanted rule by the people as opposed to rule by party committee, but they didn't necessarily want capitalism and reunification.

Later on, radical views - that is, pro-capitalist and pro-reunification views - won the revolution. Ironically, this mirrors how Kerensky failed and radical views won the Russian Revolution.

But that doesn't mean that socialism - whatever that word means - is discredited altogether in East Germany. If it was, one of 1989 SED's Gorbachevite wing's leading figures wouldn't have been able to win a Bundestag constituency seat in 2021.

Those who weren't there may not appreciate the faith we had in Gorbachev, on both sides of the curtain. The early '80s were so grim, with the war-drums beating so loudly, that when Mikhail G. came to power there was a palpable sense of relief, an almost physical feeling of relief, because G. made it possible to hope that there wasn't going to be a war after all.

And when Pink Floyd played West Berlin in 1987, they were in a spot where their psychedelic sound could be heard on the other side of the wall. A lot of Ossi kids gathered to listen in, and were then attacked by the riot squad.

But this time the kids fought back, and as they gave the riot police a taste of their own medicine they shouted "Gorby, Gorby". At least that's how I remember the story from the time.

 

[rfmcdonald]

There's still Vietnamese people in the former DDR, who came over before 1989. They tend to work in independent retail, takeaway food, cheap clothes shops etc. (at least in my experience).

This 2015 paper looking at Vietnamese migration in the Soviet bloc is worth reading.

Socialist Mobilities: Crossing New Terrains in Vietnamese Migration Histories | CEEMR

www.ceemr.uw.edu.pl

Especially given East Germany's growing labour deficits, I can imagine a growing dependence on foreign labourers. Given how the DDR favoured a guest worker model to immigration, I doubt many will be permanent.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I enjoyed reading this thread. In reality, the GDR was the jewel of the Eastern Bloc. It still was not doing that well. If it persisted, chances are that it would remain as such, stunted relative to the rest of the world. It can persist as long as the USSR does, but it requires the USSR investing less in air craft carriers, space shuttles, and expensive stuff, and simply retaining a large land army.

One problem with the idea of the Soviet bloc transitioning towards a sort of Chinese trajectory, with political authoritarianism but a dynamic economy, is that it had an altogether different relationship to Communist ideology than China did. Political orthodoxies were fundamentally different, as was the underlayment geopolitics of the situation. Would it have been possible, say, to set up special economic zones on the Chinese model in the DDR for the convenience of Western businesses?

Another problem is that the potential that existed in a much poorer China for rapid early gains did not exist in a much more developed central Europe. There was not a large peasantry in the GDR that could conceivably be mobilized for quick pabour-intensive growth, say, and no prospect of large-scale worker migration.

Still another problem is that the Soviet bloc, especially the satellite states with the most intensive contact with the West, had other options. Why mightn't East Germans prefer West German-style social democracy to a repackaged version of the old order? This is especially the case given that the old order was not that successful, not absolutely and not relative to East Germany's peers.

If East Germany does not reform radically, I expect that the gap between it and the West will continue to widen. I do not think it will get nearly as bad as the gap between the Koreas, but I do think that the convergences that we had post-1990 will not happen.