The Berlin Wall

leddy | Jan 6, 2012 |

0 Comments | Rating: 0

It was the morning of August 13^th, 1961, when the government of Eastern Germany ordered that a border, in the form of a wall, be erected, cutting off contact between the East and West regions of Germany. This wall was not only symbolic of the political separation of the two sides but also restricted trade, and even contact between family members, whose relationships were torn apart once the wall was built. These were not the only negative outcomes of the construction of the Berlin Wall, but it was difficult to predict what it would cause in the future. Now, looking back on these events, historians have a very different understanding on exactly what happened during this time and can make comparisons to the media from the past.

The Berlin Wall, which is also known as “The Wall of Shame” or “Anti-Fascist Protection Wall” by the GDR (Wikipedia, “The Berlin Wall”), was erected as a plan to stop the decreasing population in the east. When Nikita Khrushchev ordered the wall to be built, he paid no attention to the people caught on the wrong side, at the wrong time. The 140-kilometer wall was a restriction of the freedom of movement and represented the “Iron Curtain” between Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc. Soon after the blockades, Eastern German troops, National People’s Army and Combat Groups, began to tear up streets, blocking off entrance to the West, and positioned themselves in front of these new blockades. (“The Berlin Wall”) Orders were given to shoot anyone who attempted to disregard the new regulations. One of the entrances blocked was at the Brandenburg Gate, one of the main connectors between east and west. However, the first concrete structures, with barbed wire and fences, weren’t put in place until August 17

th and were located around the three western sectors to make them impassable to most vehicles (“The Berlin Wall”). At this point, East Berliners no longer could travel to the West and vice-versa.

The three western allies, United Kingdom, France and the USA, however, did little against Khrushchev. They didn’t want to fight for the unification of Germany, fearing it would result in a military conflict between the Allies and the Soviets. (History Today, “The Berlin Wall: A Secret History”) They were surprised that the Soviets hadn’t built a wall sooner. West Berliners, at this point, were isolated and East Berliners were taken away from their work in the West. Those who lived in between the two borders were relocated without choice. Eventually, several border crossings were established surrounding East Germany, and were used for transit between West Berlin and West Germany, into East Germany, into other countries neighbouring East Germany (Poland, Czechoslovakia), and also for visits by East Germans into West Berlin - provided they have the proper permits. One of these crossings was the famous “Checkpoint Charlie.” (The Berlin Wall: A Secret History”) At first, East and West Berliners couldn’t travel between the two communities at all. But in 1971, the Four Powers of Berlin came to an agreement that allowed West Berliners to apply for visas, allowing them to enter East Berlin and Germany regularly. However, East German authorities could refuse entry permits. In the time that the Berlin Wall stood, five thousand escapees successfully made it over the wall to the glorious west. But, for every success story there was also a more tragic tale. During this time, two hundred people also lost their lives. (“The Berlin Wall”)

The falling of the Berlin Wall came on November 9^th, 1989, when Günter Schabowski announced the new regulations, which stated that refugees were allowed to exit directly through the crossing points between East Germany and West Germany, including West Berlin. (“The Berlin Wall”) However, he had not been involved in the discussions about the new regulations and had not been fully updated. Before the meeting, he was handed a note that said that East Berliners would be allowed to cross the border with proper permissions, but he was given no further instructions on how to handle the information. (“The Berlin Wall”) As a result, when asked if the new regulations would start soon, Günter answer “immediately.” Media networks around the world heard these exact words and broadcasted them internationally, including Berlin sectors. East Berliners gathered immediately at the Wall, leading to the liberation of the “New Germany.”

Other than the obvious, being the different forms of communication, people from the age of the Berlin Wall were given different information than what we have access to today. One of the only forms of media was the newspaper. Newspapers had their own outlooks and opinions on what was going on during this time; therefore, the information broadcasted throughout the world was somewhat misleading. Now, in present times, scholars have their own views and opinions on what happened during those long years in Berlin. The assessments between newspapers and the perspectives of scholars today have changed because of new sources of information, the opinion of the scholar and first accounts from the people who lived through that time.

With the new resources available, scholarly figures have access to accounts that weren’t available to the newspapers and media in the early nineteen hundreds. As a result, new information that may have been “buttered up” by the newspapers is analyzed and dissected into the reality of the matter. Going back to a June 15^th, 1961 press conference (before the building of the wall) Walter Ulbricht, chairman of the GDR council of state, was asked “whether the aim of the GDR to achieve a free city in the West Berlin means erecting a state border at the Brandenburg Gate.” Chairman Ulbricht said that “[He] understands the question to imply that there are people in West Germany who would like to see [them] mobilize the construction workers of capital of the GDR for the purpose of building a wall. I am not aware of any such intention… Nobody intends to put up a Wall.” (Bahr 9) A month later, the construction of the Wall began. Different newspapers have had different opinions about the Berlin Wall and what the three allied forces were doing about it. From looking at the past newspapers, I have noticed the different emotions portrait about the allies. Two examples are sympathy and anger. In the August 14^th issue, The New York Times said that “Britain and France took this [event] as a great concern” and that “The US feared last minute efforts to seek alternatives to the use of nuclear weapons” as a result of the recent event. These accounts explain how the Allies were doing everything they could in order to solve the problems in Germany, such as sending more foreign troops into West Germany. This article contradicts another written by The New York Times, which expressed that the allies weren’t living up to what they promised Germany, to protect their sectors and the people living in them. In the article, “West Berlin—the Angry City,” editors report that “no one even tried to hide the anger. It was directed at the Allies because their reaction has so far been confined to a protest note to the Soviet Union.” (“West Berlin—the Angry City”) Anonymous protesters also began saying things like, “the East acts—and the West? The West does nothing,” (“West Berlin—Angry City”) a clear indication of for the residence of Berlin at the time felt about the Allie’s help.

The change from sympathy towards the West, to hatred was because the newspapers and different medias sources weren’t contributing all the “true” facts of the matter to the readers. If the newspapers said that “[the Americans] saw no reason to oppose this situation by force” or “that as long as the American prestige was not affected, the Soviets could do what they like with the bits of Germany they controlled, including East Berlin,” (“The Berlin Wall: A Secret History”) then the people living in Berlin would have turned to other means of reasoning to stop the situation at hand. The newspapers also said that the West Allies were surprised at the Soviet move of putting up a wall, when in reality, the West allies were already aware at least a week in advance that something big was about to happen. (“The Berlin Wall: A Secret History”) For the most part, the newspapers and other sources of media would express the feelings portrayed by the editor and not so much from the perspective of the readers. So, as a result, the citizens and people around the world were being misinformed and weren’t treated with any importance when it came to their living conditions. An example of the misinformation that was given is in the Globe and Mail August 19^th, 1961, which stated “President John F. Kennedy sent 1500 troops and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson to West Berlin. The troops will bolster the 5000-man U.S. garrison in the divided city and Mr. Johnson will assure West Germans that the United States will resist Communist attempts to take over the city.” However, John F. Kennedy’s attempt at a response was “muted—and only if the Soviets and/or East Germans protégés tried to blockade or invade West Berlin would war become a possibility” and then the new troops would be used for something. Britain was also wondering, “how long they could associate with this childish nonsense.” (“The Berlin Wall: A Secret History) Present day historians studying the Berlin Wall can now say that “it had never been seriously challenged throughout this time” and that it had continued to exist for another twenty-years—“a hideous scar on the European landscape and cruel negation of post-war Germany’s right to self determination.”(Ziolkauski) If the newspapers had more resources, like we do today, then the information that was communicated between the countries involved and the editors would have been clearer and easier to put out to the public. The assessments between newspapers and the perspectives of scholars today have changed because of new sources of information that are accessible.

The opinion of the scholar is another way the assessment between the earlier and present accounts of the Berlin Wall can be differentiated. History Today’s opinion on the wall was that “The Wall represented a uniquely squalled, violent, and ultimately futile episode in the postwar world,” and that “this subsequent international crisis threatened the world with the risk of military conflict, one that’s seemed as if it could escalate at any time into nuclear confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union.” Other scholars, with similar thoughts like the ones expressed by “The Berlin Wall: A Secret History” think of the Wall as a negative impact to the post-war world. In addition, History Today also questioned the concern the allied powers had for the crisis. Questions such as “did the leaders of the West genuinely loath the wall—or was it actually convenient to all the powers concerned?” (“The Berlin Wall: A Secret History”) have risen, in an attempt to figure out the true feelings about the Allied view of the wall. Assessments from the earlier years vary greatly from those of the present day. For example, in the past, the wall was seen as an issue that needed to be dealt with right away and was portrayed by the media as a catastrophic event in Germany. (Ziolkauski) But now, looking back on the situation, some scholars, such as Theodore Ziolkauski, state, “the building of the wall, although [it] unleashed a brief East-West showdown, was seen—from global perspective—not necessarily the catastrophe that it first appeared to be.” With the new wave of information, scholars have changed the view of an event that seemed worse in the past than it does in the present. In General, scholars and historians, who look back at the crisis, have made it clear that the Western powers, at first, didn’t care too much about the situations taking place in Berlin and that they were more important situations to take care of. The element of perspective has changed through the years because the historians and scholars have realized that the newspapers weren’t explaining every part of the Berlin Crisis to the best of their abilities. Different scholars may have different opinions with what side they were on (i.e. German scholar siding with the Germans). In addition, “many writers, at the time and in the intervening four and a half decades, have speculated what would have happened if the allies had responded to the Wall with vigorous roll-backs—bulldozing through the wire and defying the East to respond.” (“The Berlin Wall: A Secret History”)

Another way the contemporary assessments of the Berlin Wall have changed from the past to now is because of scholars’ accounts with real people who lived through the crisis. One account that was documented was from a woman named Miriam Flotow. Miriam’s life had changed after the wall had been erected in 1961 and that “[her] family now had to manage with little less. In the factories and businesses in the West, the colleagues from the East were suddenly gone. Bad news came every day. The newspapers were filled with reports of escapes.” (Bahr 13) Similar accounts are brought to the attention of scholars all the time. Another first account of the effects of the wall came from Joachim Rudolph. Rudolph explained that “nobody could have imagined that the barrier was going to stay a long time” and “how should [the division] work? Dividing Berlin, splitting an entire city?” He also stated that “with each new day, the news became more, and more depressing and threatening which is why [he] decided to return home to the sealed off eastern part of the city. Rudolph never saw himself leaving the GDR, but when his “hopes of studying at the University of Dresden were dashed, no longer wanted to line in the GDR.” (Bahr 21) These stories help the scholars, along with their own opinions of the matter, to assess what the Wall really represented in the past and now what if represents in the present and future.

Over the years after the unification of Germany, different scholars have produced different views on what happened between August 13, 1961 and November 9^th, 1989. Whether their views on the matter were positive, or negative, can vary depending on the person. Different opinions on the matter are being formulated daily, as contemporary scholars have such a broad range of information to use. The Berlin Wall is an important part of our history, but the assessments of the twenty-five years of separation have altered the information that was distributed during the period, and what is now available to the public and other important historical figures. Views on the matter have, in fact, changed because of new sources available to the scholars, new outlooks on the situation, as a result, of the new information available.

To conclude, the contemporary assessments between the media coverage during the life of the Berlin Wall and the information that is present today didn’t change overnight. Only many years after the unification of Germany, are scholarly figures able to look back and find new sources of information, including many insightful first account stories related to the Berlin Wall. Because of the differences, and advancements, of technology in the present day, as well as the opinion of our generation’s scholars, and the extremely important primary sources, those who actually experienced life during the time of the Berlin Wall, there is a very different opinion on what exactly was happening in Germany at this time.