How stable was the political system of the German Democratic Republic between 1949 and 1969?
From its inception on October 7th 1949 the German Democratic Republic (‘GDR’) was to last 40 years – longer than the Third Reich and the Weimar Republic and not far short of the Second Reich of Hohenzollern Germany. This would imply a political system with a good degree of stability. As Fulbrook observes, the GDR was ‘long noted for its apparent stability, efficiency and political quiescence’ under the rule of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (‘SED’). Yet, how stable could a political regime be that was to end dramatically in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989? How solid were the foundations set in the first 20 years? To properly address …show more content…
‘Der Aufstand’ of June 1953 is often regarded as the principle threat to the regime in the first 20 years of the GDR. An uprising, which broke out amongst the people in protest against higher working hours for the same pay, was brutally suppressed by Soviet tanks, killing 55 people. This violent reaction to the threat posed towards the political regime instilled a feeling of fear amongst the GDR’s population and the ‘intervention of the Soviet Union exerted a pressure on them to conform’. The likes of Schwenger maintain that ‘Am Ende waren es Panzer und nichts als Panzer, die Stalins Imperium zusammenhielten. This changed much in terms of reaction and any threat to the incumbent SED regime, Allinson noting that for many, ‘the motivation for allowing the political regime to continue was the desire to lead a quiet life in a situation they perceived to be unalterable’. Moreover, although the GDR was a multi party system, many historians, such as Glässner, stress the fact that ‘the ‘allied parties’ had little real input into political matters. They recognized and accepted the political leadership of the SED without reservation’. Thus the GDR was widely considered as a totalitarian state, with a political system controlled by the SED. Repression and obedience, conciliation and compromise are often cited as major factors in the stability of the SED regime. It was, after all, these factors that led to absence of threat towards the regime between 1949 and 1969. Historians such as Port stress the ‘remarkable stability of the GDR after the mass uprising of June 1953’. However, should silence be interpreted, as consent or approval, and can a political system, the stability of which relies upon repression, obedience and fear, really be considered truly stable? Does the lack of protest signify the
From its inception on October 7th 1949 the German Democratic Republic (‘GDR’) was to last 40 years – longer than the Third Reich and the Weimar Republic and not far short of the Second Reich of Hohenzollern Germany. This would imply a political system with a good degree of stability. As Fulbrook observes, the GDR was ‘long noted for its apparent stability, efficiency and political quiescence’ under the rule of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (‘SED’). Yet, how stable could a political regime be that was to end dramatically in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989? How solid were the foundations set in the first 20 years? To properly address …show more content…
‘Der Aufstand’ of June 1953 is often regarded as the principle threat to the regime in the first 20 years of the GDR. An uprising, which broke out amongst the people in protest against higher working hours for the same pay, was brutally suppressed by Soviet tanks, killing 55 people. This violent reaction to the threat posed towards the political regime instilled a feeling of fear amongst the GDR’s population and the ‘intervention of the Soviet Union exerted a pressure on them to conform’. The likes of Schwenger maintain that ‘Am Ende waren es Panzer und nichts als Panzer, die Stalins Imperium zusammenhielten. This changed much in terms of reaction and any threat to the incumbent SED regime, Allinson noting that for many, ‘the motivation for allowing the political regime to continue was the desire to lead a quiet life in a situation they perceived to be unalterable’. Moreover, although the GDR was a multi party system, many historians, such as Glässner, stress the fact that ‘the ‘allied parties’ had little real input into political matters. They recognized and accepted the political leadership of the SED without reservation’. Thus the GDR was widely considered as a totalitarian state, with a political system controlled by the SED. Repression and obedience, conciliation and compromise are often cited as major factors in the stability of the SED regime. It was, after all, these factors that led to absence of threat towards the regime between 1949 and 1969. Historians such as Port stress the ‘remarkable stability of the GDR after the mass uprising of June 1953’. However, should silence be interpreted, as consent or approval, and can a political system, the stability of which relies upon repression, obedience and fear, really be considered truly stable? Does the lack of protest signify the