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;
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
add a comment |
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
1
See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html
– Martin Schröder
Jul 7 at 15:15
add a comment |
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
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
international germany history
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
See spiegel.de/einestages/kalter-krieg-a-947419.html
– Martin Schröder
Jul 7 at 15:15