The movie “Good Bye Lenin” portrays the differences that had existed between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. The movie depicts, through the reason that the father fled to the east, that in the GDR one either had to accept, or at least pretend to accept, the values of the Communist Party or else they will be harassed by the government. This contrasts with the west, where although party affiliation was important, it was not a necessity, and there were at least three options, the CDU, the FDP, and the SPD. The movie also depicts the economic differences between the two Germanys. In the east all aspects of the economy were government owned and managed. The government regulated every aspect, from workers’ rights to the products that were sold by the stores. However, in the west there is the free market and consumerism. Thanks to the free market, people in the …show more content…
The movie shows how the process all started with protests and then the resignation of Erich Honecker. Once the Berlin wall came down, the process of unification proceeded speedily. “Good Bye Lenin” shows how consumerism and the free market swept into the east. A beneficial aspect of this was the surge in products and entertainment easterners could now buy and enjoy. However, this process was detrimental to many easterners as before integrating the eastern businesses into the economy the west decided which companies could survive the free market and which could not. The ones seen as not being able to thrive in the free market where liquidated and this led to massive unemployment. This is illustrated by the old guy that Alex talks to while dumpster diving and when Alex loses his first job. Overall, “Good Bye Lenin” compares the consumer life in the east and west before unification, and provides a recounting of the transformation of the eastern consumer’s life after
In Document 3, “The Situation in Germany” published in 1920, communist party member of the Reichstag, Clara Zetkin, talks about how the Weimer regime is only the terror of the bourgeois middle class hiding under the mask of democracy. Zetkin states how the republic is not giving power to the people, but instead becoming a dictatorship of the middle class. This document discusses how the republic is not actually making any change but instead expressing an anti-war attitude in order to disarm the revolutionaries who oppose them. However, the document holds a bias as Clara Zetkin is a communist Party member of the Reichstag, who is the main opponent of the republic. Despite this, Zetkin remains a reliable
Good Bye Lenin! is the coming of age story of a young man as he struggles with his own psychological and moral growth while trying to protect his ill mother from the shock of learning that the Berlin wall has fallen. The movie was released in 2003, but is set from October 1989 to roughly a year later highlighting the time period just before the fall of the wall and the social, political, and economic changes that happened in Germany as a result of unification. Good Bye Lenin! is set in East Berlin, and was filmed mainly at the Karl-Marx-Allee in Eastern Berlin, and in an apartment building near Alexanderplatz.
Summary of a Review Christopher Ward’s review of Robert Strayer’s Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change begins by expressing the vast amount of books produced on the subject of the Soviet Union. He then proceeds to explain how this book positively differentiates itself from the rest: by presenting the Soviet Union as “a unique political and social entity in world history.” This approach to the book is important, because it focuses little on comparisons to other events in history, and focuses on the event itself.
Expertly illuminating the blunders by SPD leadership — Smaldone details the disconnect between the ideology of the Social Democrats and the party’s first actions at the helm of Weimar leadership. As Friedrich Ebert, a more moderate Social Democrat, assumed the Presidency of the republic, he quickly utilized paramilitary troops “including radical anti-Communist volunteer units” to brutally crush Communist opposition to the more moderate leftism of the SPD. This early action by Ebert, not only was a demonstration of violence against fellow members of the broader coalition of German labor, but it severely undermined the Republic’s legitimacy. Moreover, even when the SPD’s policy did coincide with their ideological framework, the party leadership was often plagued by political lassitude - especially in the final years of the Weimar Republic.
... is good [,] what’s from the east is bad” (Kirschbaum). These sentiments clearly show the divide and discontent between the “Ossies”, East Germans, and the “Wessies”, West Germans, highlighting the rift in “united Germany.”
one is responsible for what they do. Another difference of east and west is that unlike the east the
The division of Germany into West Germany and East Germany emerged as a stopgap solution for the woeful state of the nation following its defeat in the Second World War. With the United States (US) ultimately gaining full control over West Germany, East Germany increasingly became alienated towards it, as it went under the influence of the Soviet Union (USSR). West Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), rapidly grew into one of the most politically and economically influential nations in Europe representing the democratic interests of the US in the region, while East Germany, officially the German Democratic Republic (GDR), went seemingly the other way. East Germans became increasingly disillusioned by the way their politicians have promoted communism in the GDR, characterized by oppressive measures and sheer inequality in living standards. The Stasi, the secret police unit of the GDR, closely monitored East Germans and purged those who are suspected or proven dissidents, while politicians of the nation enjoyed living standards that are way superior compared to the average East German. West Germans, on the other hand, enjoyed the benefits of political and economic reforms brought forth by the democratic influence of the US. Therefore, discontentment among East Germans increased the prospect of unification of the FRG and GDR – an issue that was never written off in consideration, only further complicated by political differences. Nevertheless, eventual unification of the FRG and GDR following the symbolic collapse of the Berlin Wall did not completely result to favorable circumstances, as problems that continued to alienate matters between the Western and Eastern sections of Germany remain unresolved (Brockman ...
The Soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1). fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government needs a strong economy to maintain its power and influence, but in this case the economic planning of the Soviet Union was just not working, which had an influence in other communist nations in Eastern Europe as they declined to collapse. The economic stagnation led to the frustration of the workers because of low payments, bad working conditions, inefficiency, corruption and any lack of incentive to do good work. There were lots of frustrations among the workers in the working field who began to express their feelings and emotions towards the Soviet government.
On the whole, does Goodbye, Lenin paint a positive or negative picture of life in communist East Germany? East Germany, its demise relayed through the mass media of recent history, has in popular consciousness been posited as negative, a corrupt bulwark of the last dying days of Communism in Eastern Europe, barren and silent. The other Germany to its West, its citizens free, was striding confidently ahead into the millennium. Recent cinema has sought to examine re-unification, with the Wolfgang Becker film Goodbye Lenin! (2003) a recent example of such an investigation into the past through cinema.
The cold war was failed by the Soviet Union for many reasons, including the sudden collapse of communism (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This sudden collapse of communism was brought on ultimately by internal factors. The soviet unions president Gorbachev’s reforms: glasnost (openness) and perestroika (political reconstructering) ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev’s basics for glasnost were the promotion of principles of freedom to criticize; the loosening of controls on media and publishing; and the freedom of worship. His essentials of perestroika were, a new legislature; creation of an executive presidency; ending of the ‘leading role’ of the communist party; allowing state enterprises to sell part of their product on the open market; lastly, allowing foreign companies to own Soviet enterprises (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Gorbachev believed his reforms would benefit his country, but the Soviet Union was ultimately held together by the soviet tradition he was trying to change. The Soviet Union was none the less held together by “…powerful central institutions, pressure for ideological conformity, and the threat of force.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov better known as Lenin. Lenin was an important part in Soviet Union history . lenin had a determined goal , he wanted power . Lenin was so powerful , he took the practice communism and made it reality throughout Soviet plus other countries he had an influence on. Lenin believed that communism could solve the problems of society , because his brother was killed by a tsarist regime. He started as a politician and war general , he later became the leader of the Soviet Union. Before Lenin was the leader a man named Stalin Ruled Soviet . Lenin despised Stalin , Lenin then started to take control of the states he created.
The emergence of market society is what Polanyi refers to as “the great transformation” (Polanyi, 1957). This great transformation is significant when discussing market society, as it is a transformation of all society. It brought forth change in the organization of the market system, and therefore society due to its efficiency in production, distribution and commodification of labour, land and money. Many changes took place with the emergence of market society, especially in relation to labour, or the work of people.
According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.
Russian Revolution Essay. Throughout history, there have been many revolutions between the population of a country and its government. People always wanted change, usually in the directions of freedom, peace and equality and in the lead up to the 1917 Russian revolution; there were a variety of social, political and economic situations that all played their part. In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, the Russo-Turkish war, the Russo-Japanese war and the First World War.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. "The German Ideology." The Marx-Engels Reader. Ed. Robert C. Tucker. New York: Norton, 1978. 146-200. Print