I'm debating about the DDR at the minute with some people, and I commented on how the Communist party were democratically elected by popular vote, in response to some idiot claiming the Soviets put them in power immediately. However someone else responded with this:
Errm, this is chiefly aimed at Mabool, but if anyone else can help, that's cool. Obviously, his points 2 and 3 are irrelevant. I merely stated they were elected, not that they allowed further elections, and the fragging Stasi are way out. I confess I don't know a massive amount about the DDR, much less the elections in 1946. Is what he said concrete and I now look like a retard, or is there more to it than what this guy is claiming?
What an idiot. First of all, there was no DDR in 1946. The state was founded in 1949.
It's true that the SED lost the local election in Berlin, though. But still, in the 1946 elections in the Soviet occupation zone (in which local state governments were elected, not a federal government), the SED turned out to be the strongest party. Even if the SED had an unfair advantage (it would be a little unwise to try to deny that), voters had the possibility of not voting for them. But obviously, they wanted socialism.
Also... the guy you're debating with is even accepting that 61,6% of voters agreed with the unity list in 1949, so where's his problem? The unity list was supported by the majority, so how can he claim that the government didn't have a popular mandate? They could have rejected the unity list as well, but they didn't.
Mabool,maybe you have more data...Can you tell me when the first non-communist(or non SED-affiliated) party entered the Volkskammer before the 1990 "free" elections?
National Democratic Party of Germany in '48 ("The National Democratic Party of Germany (German: Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, or NDPD) was an East German political party that acted as an organisation for former members of the NSDAP (WTF?) the Wehrmacht and middle classes.
Christian Democratic Union in 50's
All parties in the Volkskammer before 1990 were SED-affiliated, but nobody was forced to vote for them. Over 90 per cent of votes went to parties that supported the system, just like they do in every country in the world.
Maybe i got you wrong...Parties that support the system mean that they support the ruling party and their system of governing,or something else? So what was the difference between party programs and the SED party's agenda?
So,we now have all parties that are SED-affiliated,and nobody was forced to vote for them.
If you were eager,you could vote for SED or FDJ parties,let's say.
Were the parties affiliated with SED also supported by the government(let's say they got their pays,apartments,workplaces appointed by the government)?
Alternative Display:Mobile view