Do you support the building of the Berlin Wall?

Some say the building of the wall was to prevent the East Germans from leaving, while others claim it was merely a form of defence from the West.

Personally I think it was a bit of both, and that overall it helped ease some tensions (in the long term) on both sides.

Your views?

No, I don't, in hindsight. It seems like it was used as a propaganda tool by the West. Ie: look at those communists, they have to build a fragging wall to keep their citizens in.

Rather I believe that Berlin should have been given to either one side or the other, and not split.

for some reason the soviets wanted to split Berlin
I THINK it backfired on them

so Berlin was not part of the unconditional surrender???

No because looking back on it it basically ruined the Soviet image.

Rob-O wrote:

Rather I believe that Berlin should have been given to either one side or the other, and not split.

Probably the Soviet side then since it was already in Soviet territory.

Stalin wanted a unconditional surrender since the allies lagged it on
attacking the western front. was Berlin separation part of the agreement

LoGic_BULLS95 wrote:

Stalin wanted a unconditional surrender since the allies lagged it on
attacking the western front. was Berlin separation part of the agreement

No. The Allies decided to split up Germany after it was defeated to make reconstruction easier.

thekraken wrote:

No because looking back on it it basically ruined the Soviet image.
Probably the Soviet side then since it was already in Soviet territory.

I answered other because of this. but on the more positive side was that it really spat in the face of the US which wasnt really positive but I like it

if you say so
i guess my teacher was wrong.
let me get my history book

Quote:

The Allies decided to split up Germany after it was defeated to make reconstruction easier

Quote:

They had faith in keeping the alliance for a time, until they could recover from the war

its said the soviet union wanted to keep Germany weak and divided so that it cant wage war against the USSR again.. is that true?

Quote:

Probably the Soviet side then since it was already in Soviet territory.

Yes. I never really understood that crazy policy, but they obviously had something in mind when they did it. No doubt the Allies did not want the soviets to gain the most important city in Germany.

Quote:

its said the soviet union wanted to keep Germany weak and divided is that true

Originally, the split was a three way for the allies on the West, and a one way thing on the East. So I doubt it.

Also, why do you continually bring things up you know are inaccurate?

i brought that up from the US history book.
i know its misleading

Yes, a good short read it here.

thekraken wrote:

No because looking back on it it basically ruined the Soviet image.

Post WWII the Soviet Union, arguably, was at its peak of prestige in the eyes of most people of the world for leading the resistence against fascism. The image the capitalist portrayed of the USSR could hardly be dragged through more dirt..

don't bash the kid for saying what he was raised on. he believes the capitalist society more easily than he would believe some random revolutionary on the internet.

Fact is germany was supposed to be disarmed for a long time after world war 2, since it started the 2 last world war. even if united there would be laws against a military, just like there is something similar in the constitution of japan.

@Logic_Bull
Refer to the PM I sent you for future posting, please. It'll help you get your point across a lot easier and clearer...

Also, the Soviets didn't want to divide up either Berlin or Germany. There were some doubts about what to do with Germany regarding the economic and political system due to occupation by Soviet and Western countries, but Stalin was not in favor of deliberately keeping Germany divided and weak. In fact, the West did it first by consolidating their occupation zones together economically. Part of the reason the Soviet Union enacted the Berlin Blockade, which the West then sent in relief for through the famous Berlin Airlift (which was a pretty impressive operation and PR stunt, I won't deny that), was due to the way the Western Allies reneged on their agreements with the USSR to not turn the occupation zones into a state within their sphere of influence.

Your textbook and high school teacher pretty much gave you incomplete, inaccurate information, but since it's high school, it's not surprising. I literally like forced myself to forget about 75% of what I learned about the USSR through the History Channel and high school textbooks, because while the events are outlined, the reasons given for why these events happened were largely half-truths and very much rooted in the "liberalism vs. totalitarianism" discourse.

Oh, guys, please be nice. It's not his fault that he is repeating what he learned in his high school history class. I'm sure most of us were like this at one point, and at least he seems willing to be open-minded about it.

Stalin preferred a completely demilitarized, bourgeois Germany. He already had plenty of buffer space in place, and would have been content to let Germany stay whole and nominally independent, provided that the Allies didn't seek to remilitarize it in order to shore up for a new war against the USSR. Obviously, Truman, Eisenhower, DeGaulle, et al, had other plans...

I agree with KW. Im not bashing, just trying to help like everyone else. Sources have all different perspectives and if L-B's source has a perspective that doesnt correspond with yours (or mine), explain. I said what I said based off of the psychological aspect. That was mostly my perspective but my perspective was influenced with anti-imperialist ideas, my old high school history textbook, and other small misc. sources. i think you all get the idea