6 added 380 characters in body
source | link

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what did it comprise?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was an example of an East German citizen whose anti-fascism bound him to the regime (to the extent of participating in government) even though he was never a communist. The title of his diaries for the post-war period The Lesser Evil alludes to his attitude to the regime.

2) Inauthentic as it was, the East German sense of identity and nationhood was problematic for dissidents. Whereas a dissident Pole, Romanian etc could still think of himself as a loyal or true Pole (or Romanian etc), how was a dissident of Leipzig to think of himself? A loyal East German? Preposterous. A true German? Perhaps, but what a can of worms!

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to maintain that status, though I don't have sources for this.

4) Although Republikflucht was of course a problem, East Germany, unlike other Eastern bloc countries was able to use deportation to West Germany as a safety valve. It could rid itself of its most troublesome dissidents and thereby prevent the build up, within the country, of an established and organised opposition.

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what did it comprise?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was an example of an East German citizen whose anti-fascism bound him to the regime (to the extent of participating in government) even though he was never a communist. The title of his diaries for the post-war period The Lesser Evil alludes to his attitude to the regime.

2) Inauthentic as it was, the East German sense of identity and nationhood was problematic for dissidents. Whereas a dissident Pole, Romanian etc could still think of himself as a loyal or true Pole (or Romanian etc), how was a dissident of Leipzig to think of himself? A loyal East German? Preposterous. A true German? Perhaps, but what a can of worms!

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to maintain that status, though I don't have sources for this.

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what did it comprise?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was an example of an East German citizen whose anti-fascism bound him to the regime (to the extent of participating in government) even though he was never a communist. The title of his diaries for the post-war period The Lesser Evil alludes to his attitude to the regime.

2) Inauthentic as it was, the East German sense of identity and nationhood was problematic for dissidents. Whereas a dissident Pole, Romanian etc could still think of himself as a loyal or true Pole (or Romanian etc), how was a dissident of Leipzig to think of himself? A loyal East German? Preposterous. A true German? Perhaps, but what a can of worms!

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to maintain that status, though I don't have sources for this.

4) Although Republikflucht was of course a problem, East Germany, unlike other Eastern bloc countries was able to use deportation to West Germany as a safety valve. It could rid itself of its most troublesome dissidents and thereby prevent the build up, within the country, of an established and organised opposition.

5 added 286 characters in body
source | link

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what was that made up ofdid it comprise?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was a committedan example of an East German citizen whose anti-fascist butfascism bound him to the regime (to the extent of participating in government) even though he was never a communist. He called the third volumeThe title of his diaries for the post-war period The Lesser Evil, and he participated in alludes to his attitude to the regime's "parliament"regime.

2) Manufactured thoughInauthentic as it might have beenwas, anthe East German sense of identity and nationhood did exist, and it was based onproblematic for dissidents. Whereas a communist identitydissident Pole, since thatRomanian etc could still think of himself as a loyal or true Pole (or Romanian etc), how was its raison d'etrea dissident of Leipzig to think of himself? A loyal East German? Preposterous. A true German? Perhaps, but what a can of worms!

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to foster this notionmaintain that status, though I don't have sources for this.

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what was that made up of?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was a committed anti-fascist but never a communist. He called the third volume of his diaries The Lesser Evil, and he participated in the regime's "parliament".

2) Manufactured though it might have been, an East German sense of identity and nationhood did exist, and it was based on a communist identity, since that was its raison d'etre.

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to foster this notion, though I don't have sources for this.

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what did it comprise?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was an example of an East German citizen whose anti-fascism bound him to the regime (to the extent of participating in government) even though he was never a communist. The title of his diaries for the post-war period The Lesser Evil alludes to his attitude to the regime.

2) Inauthentic as it was, the East German sense of identity and nationhood was problematic for dissidents. Whereas a dissident Pole, Romanian etc could still think of himself as a loyal or true Pole (or Romanian etc), how was a dissident of Leipzig to think of himself? A loyal East German? Preposterous. A true German? Perhaps, but what a can of worms!

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to maintain that status, though I don't have sources for this.

4 added 2 characters in body
source | link

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other countries inpopulations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what was that made up of?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was a committed anti-fascist but never a communist. He called the third volume of his diaries The Lesser Evil, and he participated in the regime's "parliament".

2) Manufactured though it might have been, an East German sense of identity and nationhood did exist, and it was based on a communist identity, since that was its raison d'etre.

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to foster this notion, though I don't have sources for this.

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other countries in Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what was that made up of?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was a committed anti-fascist but never a communist. He called the third volume of his diaries The Lesser Evil, and he participated in the regime's "parliament".

2) Manufactured though it might have been, an East German sense of identity and nationhood did exist, and it was based on a communist identity, since that was its raison d'etre.

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to foster this notion, though I don't have sources for this.

As knut's answer points out, it's strange that your list of Eastern Bloc uprisings omits the events of 1953.

So, no, East Germans were not as a general rule more passive or acquiescent to the imposition of soviet rule than any of the other populations of Eastern Europe.

Churches, small businesses, non-communist political parties, independently minded clubs and organisations (like the scouts), non-communist radio stations and newspapers etc etc had to be coerced, bribed, tricked or infiltrated into compliance using all the same techniques across East Germany as were used elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Anne Applebaum's recent book Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe is rich in detailed information on this topic.

In fact the Applebaum book is a study of the similarities between the Poland, Hungary and East Germany (she has very little to say about the other Soviet satellites), and shows how the patterns of totalitarian control (and indeed resistance) were the same in all three countries.

Nevertheless, to try to answer the final section of your question ... if there was anything unique in the East German situation which made communist government easier to impose, what was that made up of?

1) For those who desired a proper and symbolic break from Nazism, communism was an authentic alternative. Victor Klemperor was a committed anti-fascist but never a communist. He called the third volume of his diaries The Lesser Evil, and he participated in the regime's "parliament".

2) Manufactured though it might have been, an East German sense of identity and nationhood did exist, and it was based on a communist identity, since that was its raison d'etre.

3) Of the Eastern Bloc countries, East Germany was amongst the most prosperous, or at least was perceived that way. It may well have received preferential levels of economic assistance from Moscow in order to foster this notion, though I don't have sources for this.

3 added 939 characters in body
source | link
2 deleted 1534 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link