Did right-wing politician Franz Josef Strauss ever explain why he gave a 3 billion loan to East Germany in 1983?Why did Denmark stop refugees transiting from Germany to Sweden?Why did it take so long for Germany to change laws applied to wireless hot spots?Why did Germany and Sweden decide to accept Syrian refugees?Why did Germany veto an expanded customs union between the EU and Turkey?Why did it take so long for Germany to allow electric scooters / e-rollers on the roads?

Index Uniqueness Overhead

How to honestly answer questions from a girlfriend like "How did you find this place" without giving the impression I'm always talking about my exes?

How could an animal "smell" carbon monoxide?

Is dividends exclusively a part of earnings?

Why run a service as a system user?

Why does the Earth have a z-component at the start of the J2000 epoch?

Sending a photo of my bank account card to the future employer

Is there an English equivalent for "Les carottes sont cuites", while keeping the vegetable reference?

Why aren't globular clusters disk shaped

Manually select/unselect lines before forwarding to stdout

pgfkeys: .store in constructed macro

If a player tries to persuade somebody, what should that creature roll not to be persuaded?

Ethical for a company to ask employees to move furniture on the weekend?

Mathematica function equivalent to Matlab's residue function (partial fraction expansion)

Too many spies!

Can you perfectly wrap a cube with this blocky shape?

Is there a way to handmake alphabet pasta?

Draw a line nicely around notes

When to ask for constructive criticism?

Why are road bikes (not time trial bikes) used in many triathlons?

Why isn't aluminium involved in biological processes?

Doing research in academia and not liking competition

How are packets handled and prioritized over a link with multiple VLANS?

What do these three diagonal lines that cross through three measures and both staves mean, and what are they called?



Did right-wing politician Franz Josef Strauss ever explain why he gave a 3 billion loan to East Germany in 1983?


Why did Denmark stop refugees transiting from Germany to Sweden?Why did it take so long for Germany to change laws applied to wireless hot spots?Why did Germany and Sweden decide to accept Syrian refugees?Why did Germany veto an expanded customs union between the EU and Turkey?Why did it take so long for Germany to allow electric scooters / e-rollers on the roads?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








14















Economist Manfred Melzer described East Germany's economy in the 1980s like this (1):




The economy performed fairly well in the first half of the 1980's, raising exports while conserving raw materials. But in the second half, where the demand has shifted to higher-quality technological products, there have been problems. It just hasn't worked.




What Franz Josef Strauss ("No legitimate political party can be right of the CSU", (2)) from the center-right CSU did as the Minister-President of Bavaria as described by wikipedia:




In 1983, he was primarily responsible for a loan of 3 billion Deutsche Mark given to East Germany. This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally, was widely criticised even during Strauss's lifetime.




I didn't find an explanation, but it does quite puzzle me. It seems that Strauss and East Germany would be natural enemies, yet he was the driving force between such a huge loan.



Are Strauss's motives for the 1983 loan to East Germany known?




(1) Ferdinand Protzman, East Germany Losing Its Edge, The New York Times, 1989



(2) Volker Wagner, Opinion: the problem to the right of the CDU, Deutsche Welle, 2014










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html

    – Martin Schröder
    Jul 7 at 15:15

















14















Economist Manfred Melzer described East Germany's economy in the 1980s like this (1):




The economy performed fairly well in the first half of the 1980's, raising exports while conserving raw materials. But in the second half, where the demand has shifted to higher-quality technological products, there have been problems. It just hasn't worked.




What Franz Josef Strauss ("No legitimate political party can be right of the CSU", (2)) from the center-right CSU did as the Minister-President of Bavaria as described by wikipedia:




In 1983, he was primarily responsible for a loan of 3 billion Deutsche Mark given to East Germany. This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally, was widely criticised even during Strauss's lifetime.




I didn't find an explanation, but it does quite puzzle me. It seems that Strauss and East Germany would be natural enemies, yet he was the driving force between such a huge loan.



Are Strauss's motives for the 1983 loan to East Germany known?




(1) Ferdinand Protzman, East Germany Losing Its Edge, The New York Times, 1989



(2) Volker Wagner, Opinion: the problem to the right of the CDU, Deutsche Welle, 2014










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html

    – Martin Schröder
    Jul 7 at 15:15













14












14








14


1






Economist Manfred Melzer described East Germany's economy in the 1980s like this (1):




The economy performed fairly well in the first half of the 1980's, raising exports while conserving raw materials. But in the second half, where the demand has shifted to higher-quality technological products, there have been problems. It just hasn't worked.




What Franz Josef Strauss ("No legitimate political party can be right of the CSU", (2)) from the center-right CSU did as the Minister-President of Bavaria as described by wikipedia:




In 1983, he was primarily responsible for a loan of 3 billion Deutsche Mark given to East Germany. This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally, was widely criticised even during Strauss's lifetime.




I didn't find an explanation, but it does quite puzzle me. It seems that Strauss and East Germany would be natural enemies, yet he was the driving force between such a huge loan.



Are Strauss's motives for the 1983 loan to East Germany known?




(1) Ferdinand Protzman, East Germany Losing Its Edge, The New York Times, 1989



(2) Volker Wagner, Opinion: the problem to the right of the CDU, Deutsche Welle, 2014










share|improve this question














Economist Manfred Melzer described East Germany's economy in the 1980s like this (1):




The economy performed fairly well in the first half of the 1980's, raising exports while conserving raw materials. But in the second half, where the demand has shifted to higher-quality technological products, there have been problems. It just hasn't worked.




What Franz Josef Strauss ("No legitimate political party can be right of the CSU", (2)) from the center-right CSU did as the Minister-President of Bavaria as described by wikipedia:




In 1983, he was primarily responsible for a loan of 3 billion Deutsche Mark given to East Germany. This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally, was widely criticised even during Strauss's lifetime.




I didn't find an explanation, but it does quite puzzle me. It seems that Strauss and East Germany would be natural enemies, yet he was the driving force between such a huge loan.



Are Strauss's motives for the 1983 loan to East Germany known?




(1) Ferdinand Protzman, East Germany Losing Its Edge, The New York Times, 1989



(2) Volker Wagner, Opinion: the problem to the right of the CDU, Deutsche Welle, 2014







international germany history






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jul 7 at 13:18









zoon politikonzoon politikon

2239 bronze badges




2239 bronze badges







  • 1





    See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html

    – Martin Schröder
    Jul 7 at 15:15












  • 1





    See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html

    – Martin Schröder
    Jul 7 at 15:15







1




1





See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html

– Martin Schröder
Jul 7 at 15:15





See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html

– Martin Schröder
Jul 7 at 15:15










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















10














He had to explain it. A lot. As this was quite the scandal at the time.



He himself reasoned and justified the deal, for example in his memoirs.



Franz-Josef Strauß: "Die Erinnerungen", Berlin, 1989 (p 470–496).



He reasoned that existential hardships might lead to uprisings in the East which the West could not support, thereby leading to their demise and raising the threat potential for warlike tensions.



He also thought that to be a bargain, both within the West and the East. The concrete negotiated details like easier border regime, facilitated travel for a subset of the population or agreements on armament, economic cooperation or environmental issues –– were much less important, according to him, than his manoeuvring against the Socialists in both states and the possibility to gain manoeuvrability against the even farther right than him in the West!



The Party newspaper Bayernkurier also stated in its issue from 16. July 1983 an account of official goals. It was still stated to aim at unification in the long term, while getting pragmatic solutions to concrete problems now. And from Western perspective that meant particular "humanitarian quid-pro-quos".



And in a variation of the old Vulcan proverb that 'only Nixon could go to China',




Ein Glück für Strauß, daß ihn kein Kritiker namens Strauß verfolgt!
–– Roswin Finkenzeller, Am liebsten wäre er immer unterwegs, in: FAZ, 29.7.1983.




His own memoirs are remarkable as a source as he died before the state merger took place and thus he did not have the chance to rewrite his own history with that hindsight. How much rewriting took place regarding this deal can be seen when reading the contemporary accounts around that date in old newspaper analyses, like DDR-Milliardenkredit: „Das ist ja ein Ding“ Die deutsch-deutschen Kontakte des Franz Josef Strauß, Spiegel, 1983 or an interview with Strauß and compare them to the mythical narrative now established.



In contrast to the quote from the question:




This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally…




He declared in the interview just linked:




I didn't stain my hands because there's nothing to stain here. But anyone who opposes this policy must stick to the truth. He must then say: I am against the German policy of the Federal Chancellor and his Federal Government. That is the only thing he can say and then attack the Federal Government. If I agree with this policy on Germany, then we cannot say that I pushed it through against the will of the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs. Anyone who is against me is also against Kohl.




There certainly is some truth in there. How much is an exercise for the reader.






share|improve this answer
































    3














    I believe the details are still not clear. However:



    • It seems that Strauß did not think that an economic collapse of the GDR in the early 80s would be in the interest of the FRG.

    • There were some deals regarding improvements for the GDR citizens, e.g. the removal of spring guns from border fences. Presumably the GDR wanted to remove them anyway, but Strauss might not have known this.





    share|improve this answer

























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "475"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42744%2fdid-right-wing-politician-franz-josef-strauss-ever-explain-why-he-gave-a-3-billi%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      10














      He had to explain it. A lot. As this was quite the scandal at the time.



      He himself reasoned and justified the deal, for example in his memoirs.



      Franz-Josef Strauß: "Die Erinnerungen", Berlin, 1989 (p 470–496).



      He reasoned that existential hardships might lead to uprisings in the East which the West could not support, thereby leading to their demise and raising the threat potential for warlike tensions.



      He also thought that to be a bargain, both within the West and the East. The concrete negotiated details like easier border regime, facilitated travel for a subset of the population or agreements on armament, economic cooperation or environmental issues –– were much less important, according to him, than his manoeuvring against the Socialists in both states and the possibility to gain manoeuvrability against the even farther right than him in the West!



      The Party newspaper Bayernkurier also stated in its issue from 16. July 1983 an account of official goals. It was still stated to aim at unification in the long term, while getting pragmatic solutions to concrete problems now. And from Western perspective that meant particular "humanitarian quid-pro-quos".



      And in a variation of the old Vulcan proverb that 'only Nixon could go to China',




      Ein Glück für Strauß, daß ihn kein Kritiker namens Strauß verfolgt!
      –– Roswin Finkenzeller, Am liebsten wäre er immer unterwegs, in: FAZ, 29.7.1983.




      His own memoirs are remarkable as a source as he died before the state merger took place and thus he did not have the chance to rewrite his own history with that hindsight. How much rewriting took place regarding this deal can be seen when reading the contemporary accounts around that date in old newspaper analyses, like DDR-Milliardenkredit: „Das ist ja ein Ding“ Die deutsch-deutschen Kontakte des Franz Josef Strauß, Spiegel, 1983 or an interview with Strauß and compare them to the mythical narrative now established.



      In contrast to the quote from the question:




      This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally…




      He declared in the interview just linked:




      I didn't stain my hands because there's nothing to stain here. But anyone who opposes this policy must stick to the truth. He must then say: I am against the German policy of the Federal Chancellor and his Federal Government. That is the only thing he can say and then attack the Federal Government. If I agree with this policy on Germany, then we cannot say that I pushed it through against the will of the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs. Anyone who is against me is also against Kohl.




      There certainly is some truth in there. How much is an exercise for the reader.






      share|improve this answer





























        10














        He had to explain it. A lot. As this was quite the scandal at the time.



        He himself reasoned and justified the deal, for example in his memoirs.



        Franz-Josef Strauß: "Die Erinnerungen", Berlin, 1989 (p 470–496).



        He reasoned that existential hardships might lead to uprisings in the East which the West could not support, thereby leading to their demise and raising the threat potential for warlike tensions.



        He also thought that to be a bargain, both within the West and the East. The concrete negotiated details like easier border regime, facilitated travel for a subset of the population or agreements on armament, economic cooperation or environmental issues –– were much less important, according to him, than his manoeuvring against the Socialists in both states and the possibility to gain manoeuvrability against the even farther right than him in the West!



        The Party newspaper Bayernkurier also stated in its issue from 16. July 1983 an account of official goals. It was still stated to aim at unification in the long term, while getting pragmatic solutions to concrete problems now. And from Western perspective that meant particular "humanitarian quid-pro-quos".



        And in a variation of the old Vulcan proverb that 'only Nixon could go to China',




        Ein Glück für Strauß, daß ihn kein Kritiker namens Strauß verfolgt!
        –– Roswin Finkenzeller, Am liebsten wäre er immer unterwegs, in: FAZ, 29.7.1983.




        His own memoirs are remarkable as a source as he died before the state merger took place and thus he did not have the chance to rewrite his own history with that hindsight. How much rewriting took place regarding this deal can be seen when reading the contemporary accounts around that date in old newspaper analyses, like DDR-Milliardenkredit: „Das ist ja ein Ding“ Die deutsch-deutschen Kontakte des Franz Josef Strauß, Spiegel, 1983 or an interview with Strauß and compare them to the mythical narrative now established.



        In contrast to the quote from the question:




        This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally…




        He declared in the interview just linked:




        I didn't stain my hands because there's nothing to stain here. But anyone who opposes this policy must stick to the truth. He must then say: I am against the German policy of the Federal Chancellor and his Federal Government. That is the only thing he can say and then attack the Federal Government. If I agree with this policy on Germany, then we cannot say that I pushed it through against the will of the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs. Anyone who is against me is also against Kohl.




        There certainly is some truth in there. How much is an exercise for the reader.






        share|improve this answer



























          10












          10








          10







          He had to explain it. A lot. As this was quite the scandal at the time.



          He himself reasoned and justified the deal, for example in his memoirs.



          Franz-Josef Strauß: "Die Erinnerungen", Berlin, 1989 (p 470–496).



          He reasoned that existential hardships might lead to uprisings in the East which the West could not support, thereby leading to their demise and raising the threat potential for warlike tensions.



          He also thought that to be a bargain, both within the West and the East. The concrete negotiated details like easier border regime, facilitated travel for a subset of the population or agreements on armament, economic cooperation or environmental issues –– were much less important, according to him, than his manoeuvring against the Socialists in both states and the possibility to gain manoeuvrability against the even farther right than him in the West!



          The Party newspaper Bayernkurier also stated in its issue from 16. July 1983 an account of official goals. It was still stated to aim at unification in the long term, while getting pragmatic solutions to concrete problems now. And from Western perspective that meant particular "humanitarian quid-pro-quos".



          And in a variation of the old Vulcan proverb that 'only Nixon could go to China',




          Ein Glück für Strauß, daß ihn kein Kritiker namens Strauß verfolgt!
          –– Roswin Finkenzeller, Am liebsten wäre er immer unterwegs, in: FAZ, 29.7.1983.




          His own memoirs are remarkable as a source as he died before the state merger took place and thus he did not have the chance to rewrite his own history with that hindsight. How much rewriting took place regarding this deal can be seen when reading the contemporary accounts around that date in old newspaper analyses, like DDR-Milliardenkredit: „Das ist ja ein Ding“ Die deutsch-deutschen Kontakte des Franz Josef Strauß, Spiegel, 1983 or an interview with Strauß and compare them to the mythical narrative now established.



          In contrast to the quote from the question:




          This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally…




          He declared in the interview just linked:




          I didn't stain my hands because there's nothing to stain here. But anyone who opposes this policy must stick to the truth. He must then say: I am against the German policy of the Federal Chancellor and his Federal Government. That is the only thing he can say and then attack the Federal Government. If I agree with this policy on Germany, then we cannot say that I pushed it through against the will of the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs. Anyone who is against me is also against Kohl.




          There certainly is some truth in there. How much is an exercise for the reader.






          share|improve this answer















          He had to explain it. A lot. As this was quite the scandal at the time.



          He himself reasoned and justified the deal, for example in his memoirs.



          Franz-Josef Strauß: "Die Erinnerungen", Berlin, 1989 (p 470–496).



          He reasoned that existential hardships might lead to uprisings in the East which the West could not support, thereby leading to their demise and raising the threat potential for warlike tensions.



          He also thought that to be a bargain, both within the West and the East. The concrete negotiated details like easier border regime, facilitated travel for a subset of the population or agreements on armament, economic cooperation or environmental issues –– were much less important, according to him, than his manoeuvring against the Socialists in both states and the possibility to gain manoeuvrability against the even farther right than him in the West!



          The Party newspaper Bayernkurier also stated in its issue from 16. July 1983 an account of official goals. It was still stated to aim at unification in the long term, while getting pragmatic solutions to concrete problems now. And from Western perspective that meant particular "humanitarian quid-pro-quos".



          And in a variation of the old Vulcan proverb that 'only Nixon could go to China',




          Ein Glück für Strauß, daß ihn kein Kritiker namens Strauß verfolgt!
          –– Roswin Finkenzeller, Am liebsten wäre er immer unterwegs, in: FAZ, 29.7.1983.




          His own memoirs are remarkable as a source as he died before the state merger took place and thus he did not have the chance to rewrite his own history with that hindsight. How much rewriting took place regarding this deal can be seen when reading the contemporary accounts around that date in old newspaper analyses, like DDR-Milliardenkredit: „Das ist ja ein Ding“ Die deutsch-deutschen Kontakte des Franz Josef Strauß, Spiegel, 1983 or an interview with Strauß and compare them to the mythical narrative now established.



          In contrast to the quote from the question:




          This move, in violation of longtime CSU/CDU policy to allow the East German economy to collapse naturally…




          He declared in the interview just linked:




          I didn't stain my hands because there's nothing to stain here. But anyone who opposes this policy must stick to the truth. He must then say: I am against the German policy of the Federal Chancellor and his Federal Government. That is the only thing he can say and then attack the Federal Government. If I agree with this policy on Germany, then we cannot say that I pushed it through against the will of the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs. Anyone who is against me is also against Kohl.




          There certainly is some truth in there. How much is an exercise for the reader.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jul 8 at 16:33

























          answered Jul 7 at 21:52









          LangLangCLangLangC

          2,3991 gold badge5 silver badges26 bronze badges




          2,3991 gold badge5 silver badges26 bronze badges























              3














              I believe the details are still not clear. However:



              • It seems that Strauß did not think that an economic collapse of the GDR in the early 80s would be in the interest of the FRG.

              • There were some deals regarding improvements for the GDR citizens, e.g. the removal of spring guns from border fences. Presumably the GDR wanted to remove them anyway, but Strauss might not have known this.





              share|improve this answer



























                3














                I believe the details are still not clear. However:



                • It seems that Strauß did not think that an economic collapse of the GDR in the early 80s would be in the interest of the FRG.

                • There were some deals regarding improvements for the GDR citizens, e.g. the removal of spring guns from border fences. Presumably the GDR wanted to remove them anyway, but Strauss might not have known this.





                share|improve this answer

























                  3












                  3








                  3







                  I believe the details are still not clear. However:



                  • It seems that Strauß did not think that an economic collapse of the GDR in the early 80s would be in the interest of the FRG.

                  • There were some deals regarding improvements for the GDR citizens, e.g. the removal of spring guns from border fences. Presumably the GDR wanted to remove them anyway, but Strauss might not have known this.





                  share|improve this answer













                  I believe the details are still not clear. However:



                  • It seems that Strauß did not think that an economic collapse of the GDR in the early 80s would be in the interest of the FRG.

                  • There were some deals regarding improvements for the GDR citizens, e.g. the removal of spring guns from border fences. Presumably the GDR wanted to remove them anyway, but Strauss might not have known this.






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jul 7 at 16:52









                  o.m.o.m.

                  17.8k3 gold badges43 silver badges64 bronze badges




                  17.8k3 gold badges43 silver badges64 bronze badges



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42744%2fdid-right-wing-politician-franz-josef-strauss-ever-explain-why-he-gave-a-3-billi%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Get product attribute by attribute group code in magento 2get product attribute by product attribute group in magento 2Magento 2 Log Bundle Product Data in List Page?How to get all product attribute of a attribute group of Default attribute set?Magento 2.1 Create a filter in the product grid by new attributeMagento 2 : Get Product Attribute values By GroupMagento 2 How to get all existing values for one attributeMagento 2 get custom attribute of a single product inside a pluginMagento 2.3 How to get all the Multi Source Inventory (MSI) locations collection in custom module?Magento2: how to develop rest API to get new productsGet product attribute by attribute group code ( [attribute_group_code] ) in magento 2

                      Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                      Magento 2.3: How do i solve this, Not registered handle, on custom form?How can i rewrite TierPrice Block in Magento2magento 2 captcha not rendering if I override layout xmlmain.CRITICAL: Plugin class doesn't existMagento 2 : Problem while adding custom button order view page?Magento 2.2.5: Overriding Admin Controller sales/orderMagento 2.2.5: Add, Update and Delete existing products Custom OptionsMagento 2.3 : File Upload issue in UI Component FormMagento2 Not registered handleHow to configured Form Builder Js in my custom magento 2.3.0 module?Magento 2.3. How to create image upload field in an admin form