The "dismantling" itself (which at the outset was more like vandalism and souvenir-grabbing) started happening spontaneously after crowds began to overwhelm the border crossing, and the ensuing carnival atmosphere took over.
I am not sure "vandalism" is the right term, when it comes to damaging a prison wall for a whole nation.
It was a symbol of fear and oppression. People were shot at the wall every year, so sure, not everyone (or maybe only a few) who joined, were freedom fighters or deeply philosophical about the meaning of what they were doing. But it still was a liberating act, doing something that likely would have got you shot, just the day before. No matter if you would have tried it from the western or eastern side.
(even though of course, it was more likely from the eastern side, the western side was already full of graffiti, but actually damaging the wall, also from the western side, would have not been very dangerous. People did do this to help people flee the east on purpose. And some of those helpers did get shot.)
The Russians, invaded twice by Germany in the 20th century, sought to withdraw completely from Germany, if it became a neutral country like Switzerland or Austria. The West Germans continually refused this. By 1961 they through in the towel and the west Berlin enclave was sealed off. After the USSR broke up, Russian and German (and western) documents on this were released, which verified what happened at the time.
When Germany sought to reunite, the Prime Minister of the UK, Thatcher, sought behind closed doors to stop German reunification. So it was Gorbachev removing impediments to reunification and Thatcher seeking to create them.
The inevitable anti-fascist protection barrier. Forced into being by the conniving, obstreperous Western machinations, you see.
At the end of the day - it was still about putting a bullet in the back of anyone who dared to cross.
West German tanks and military vehicles could have driven over the ditches without major issues. They only worked one way - from east to west.
[1] e.g. https://www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/Vogeler/FortifiedFence...
This is entirely correct, however it also hides Soviet intent.
They had tried hard with Germany without result. It wasn’t an invasion, but they were interfering and trying to achieve Revolution.
There is a good book on it by Catherine Merridale: Lenin on the Train
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29847081-lenin-on-the-tr...
Because Hitler later betrayed Stalin, and Russia did by far the most work in defeating Nazi Germany, we have since learned to see Russia as one of the good guys in WW2, but they didn't start out that way; they were initially one of the aggressors, invading Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland.
Ah, the convenience of ignoring Munich Agreement.
>> In 1938, the Soviet Union was allied with France and Czechoslovakia. By September 1939, the Soviets were to all intents and purposes a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, due to Stalin's fears of a second Munich Agreement with the Soviet Union replacing Czechoslovakia. Thus, the agreement indirectly contributed to the outbreak of war in 1939.[87]
But the whole run up to WW2 definitely shows the folly of appeasing aggressors by rewarding their aggression. A lesson that's definitely relevant today.
There were quite a lot of actions which guided the Soviets up to 1939 and I can't say these were 'misguided appeasement'. It takes a lot to convince someone to work with people whose anthem contains 'Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen / Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit.'
Not much, if there is something to gain. Because diplomats did the talking and they are usually disconnected from the goons on the ground doing that singing. And the sovjets had their songs and goons and gulags and NKVD too, as you well know.
And I am not sure if you actually understand that song, because it just says the Nazis think about the spirits of their comrades who were killed by the Rotfront, (german communist) and by the Reaktion, conservative (monarchistic) forces opposing the Nazis. (not the other way around, like you seemed to have understood)
And they were. But of course by that time, way more Rotfront people were murdered by the Nazis and they probably also sang about that, so you likely could have choosen a better song. This song lets one rather question, why the nazis could bring themself to work with the sovjets at all and the answer is the same: because there was something to gain.
Otherwise this discussion sounds to me like a discussion about what is better, plague or cholera?
It was 2 confronting totalitarian empires, with total disregard for human life, unless it happened to be an important party member. And in the use of terror against anyone opposing, they were pretty similar.
Or there was something to lose if remain in the current status quo.
> diplomats did the talking and they are usually disconnected from the goons on the ground doing that singing
Sorry?
>> [...] Goebbels' propaganda created what became one of the Nazi Party's central martyr-figures of their movement. He officially declared Wessel's march, renamed as the "Horst-Wessel-Lied" ("Horst Wessel Song"), to be the Nazi Party anthem [...] The "Horst Wessel Song" was sung by the SA at the funeral, and was thereafter extensively used at party functions, as well as sung by the SA during street parades.
Were the Soviet diplomats deaf?
> because it just says the Nazis think about the spirits of their comrades who were killed by the Rotfront
:rolleyes: Some people pertain the idea what the Soviets were totally clueless about how evil Nazis were[0] or what the Soviets were totally on board with Nazis in their evilness[1]. Sometimes both at the same time.
This song is a clear evidence what both the nazis and the communists were a 'natural enemies', what there is no fucking way the Soviets didn't knew that (see [1] again) and what if you find them working together then for the reasons you should look not at them but for their environment.
[0] rare, but I've seen those folks
[1] this is the default, especially if the history knowledge ends with a parroted response about Molotov-Ribbentrop
Apart from that, of course they were natural enemies. Mein Kampf and many other sources spoke about the concept of conquering land in the east.
And the sowjets wanted the world revolution. Also documented.
So why pick that example then?
Because with that, you could also "proof" that the Nazis were mortal enemies to the conservative forces in germany. Were they? As far as I know, not really and surely not as long as the nazis were successfull.
So I really do suspect, that you were not aware, but cannot admit a misstake now, like you cannot admit any wrongdoing by the sowjets. Sorry, but this is not a base for me for serious debate.
> sought to withdraw completely from Germany, if it became a neutral country like Switzerland or Austria
this bargain didn't work out too well for Czechoslovakia.
(my first reaction was)