Cold War conversations

D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Not short or particularly easy to read, but a thesis for a degree of Doctor of Philosophy seldom is, the following document may be of interest to those reading this thread
Surveillance and Control: An Ethnographic Study of the Legacy of the Stasi and its impact on wellbeing, by Ulrike Neuendorf.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10040339/3/Neuendorf_10040339_thesis.pdf

It goes some way to explaining the mindset that the population of the GDR had in relation to the state and the Stasi.

Have fun anyone who manages to read it all.
I’ve got a long train journey tomorrow; I look forward to reading this document (which Pants O’fire will no doubt poo-poo).
 
I’ve got a long train journey tomorrow; I look forward to reading this document (which Pants O’fire will no doubt poo-poo).
Having only skimmed it I don't believe it entirely demolishes his argument but it seems to give a reasoned explanation as to how the population came to be "satisfied" with their lot.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
It's interesting to conjecture whether a "1989-stylee" domestic revolution could take place or not. Personally, I feel it's on the cards in the not too distant future, but I don't believe it'll happen in the UK. I think that either France, Italy or Ireland could be the culprits to kick things off. Although in Ireland it'll probably all come to nothing, what with us being the undisputed world champions in failed revolutions and all.

However, the French are certainly militant enough, as are the Italians - especially in the "mezzogiorno". It could also conceivably begin in Germany itself since the East Germans delivered a template on how to successfully get rid of a useless regime. We shall see.

I agree that the filum is interesting and very well acted. But it's also totally unrealistic. The Stasi in Berlin, Capital of the GDR only had the capacity to tap a maximum of 40 telephones at any one time. Just 13 percent of the GDR population had access to a phone. Of those phones in use across the country, 75 percent were party lines, with two and sometimes three subscribers.

Do you really believe that a Stasi wallah would be able to arrange a "private" tapping attack, just to satisfy his desire for a woman? These are Boxheeds we're talking about and, East or West, they do things by the book. And where have I ever stated that I liked the Stasi? I know it fits in with your blinkered and simplistic view, but it simply isn't true.

MsG
You’ve not seen the film, have you Bugsey? Are you denying the systematic surveillance of citizens by electronic means, by the Stasi?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
You’ve not seen the film, have you Bugsey? Are you denying the systematic surveillance of citizens by electronic means, by the Stasi?
Firstly, I have seen the filum: as I've already stated, I found it interesting and very well acted. I've also never denied that the Stasi carried out systematic surveillance. How could I? I was often under surveillance by them myself. And I do wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth.

Your problem, Gash, is that you're so utterly obsessed with "proving" that the Stasi wore the black hats and everyone else wore white hats that you immediately disregard anything and everything that might weaken your inculcated bigotry and prejudices, even though practically everything you know about the GDR comes from negative propaganda pushed by those with a certain agenda. How about this then:
Consider this: “From 1949 until the beginning of the 1970s, well over 100 million letters and parcels were opened, evaluated and most of them burned or shredded, officially, for reasons of “state security”. Countless telephone lines were tapped for the same reason. An enormous effort was undertaken by the authorities that was kept secret from the population and carried out by dedicated snoopers and listeners – all in direct contradiction of the valid constitution, which stated that postal and telephone privacy were ‘immutable’ rights of the citizens”.

Most folks will read that and sagely nod because, after all, it’s “well known” that the GDR regime resorted to such measures. However, in a rather unexpected twist, the passage is taken from the “Neues Deutschland" newspaper of 20 December 2012, from an article written by Arno Klönne. He was reviewing a book by Josef Foschepoth called: “Germany monitored. Mail and Telephone Monitoring in the Old Federal Republic” (Überwachtes Deutschland. Post- und Telefonüberwachung in der alten Bundesrepublik), in which the carefully nurtured image of a liberal, democratic, upstanding West Germany comes away with more than a few blemishes. In mitigation, it has to be said that the West Germans, with their limited sovereignty, had no real choice but to carry out all that clandestine, and actually illegal, monitoring at the express behest of the secret services of France, the UK and particularly of the US. Any “East” propaganda was to be destroyed, while looking for opportunities to pass on “West” propaganda. Potential informants were also noted. The “enemy” was Communism and any political belief or activity that seemed to be connected with it. Indeed, some West German citizens were arrested and investigated in the 1950s because they had a subscription to the East German “Neues Deutschland” newspaper. Reading it (this is not a joke) was declared an indictable offence because it was considered to be a form of mental preparation for an act of “high treason”. All that just shows that the mail and telephone monitoring in the GDR was, and still is, only on a much larger scale, carried out by just about every nation and corresponded to normal, international practice. For, er, national security reasons, of course.
MsG
 
Your sarcasm is misplaced - Thought you were a stickler for facts!
Bugsy and facts ..................Ha Ha Ha.
As you can see, his German isn't that good and his knowledge of the military is even worse.
But he will of course dismiss it as a typo, like he does with every other factually incorrect statement.
 

dlrg

LE
Bugsy and facts ..................Ha Ha Ha.
As you can see, his German isn't that good and his knowledge of the military is even worse.
But he will of course dismiss it as a typo, like he does with every other factually incorrect statement.
I'm afraid you're right on all counts there Murph.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Bugsy and facts ..................Ha Ha Ha.
As you can see, his German isn't that good and his knowledge of the military is even worse.
But he will of course dismiss it as a typo, like he does with every other factually incorrect statement.
I see he’s continuing to defend the surveillant State. He’s an enigma wrapped up in a thin tissue of fibs. In his version of a Socialist Utopia, I wonder what level of surveillance and state intrusion he would believe to be necessary to protect it from reactionary capitalists?
 
Not short or particularly easy to read, but a thesis for a degree of Doctor of Philosophy seldom is, the following document may be of interest to those reading this thread
Surveillance and Control: An Ethnographic Study of the Legacy of the Stasi and its impact on wellbeing, by Ulrike Neuendorf.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10040339/3/Neuendorf_10040339_thesis.pdf

It goes some way to explaining the mindset that the population of the GDR had in relation to the state and the Stasi.

Have fun anyone who manages to read it all.
Thanks for that. I've just read the introduction and it looks very interesting.
 
It didn't work like that, Acid_Reign. There had to be indisputable evidence from a number of Stasi departments before such permissions were handed out. Everything in writing and in triplicate, so to speak. Moreover, the suspicion had to be based on surveillance over more than three months. All that was explained to me in about 1995 by an ex-Stasi officer formerly stationed in Berlin, Capital of the GDR, Oberst (General) Wolfgang Schmidt, who was the head of "Department XI" responsible for liaison with the so-called factory combat groups (Betriebskampfgruppen) in the GDR.

MsG
Bugsy, would you please desist in future with your asinine usage of the term "Berlin, Capital of the GDR". The terms of the London Protocol of 12 September 1944 relating to Berlin were:

1. Germany, within her frontiers as they were on 31st December, 1937, will, for the purposes of occupation, be divided into three zones, one of which will be allotted to each of the Three Powers, and a special Berlin area, which will be under joint occupation by the Three Powers.

2. The boundaries of the three zones and of the Berlin area, and the allocation of the three zones ... will be as follows ... The Berlin area (by which expression is understood the territory of 'Greater Berlin' as defined by the law of 27th April 1920) will be jointly occupied by the armed forces of the USA, UK and USSR, assigned by the respective Commander-in-Chief. For this purpose the territory of Greater Berlin' will be divided into the following three parts ... ...
As we know the French were subsequently allocated a zone in Germany and a sector in Berlin (both in territory ceded by their western allies). As we also know, the Soviets walked out of the Kommandatura on 20 March 1948, forcing it to operate de facto on a Three Power basis. However, as the absence of the Soviet Commandant was interpreted not as a veto but as an abstention from voting, the Kommandatura, operating on a Three Power basis but de jure a Four Power Kommandatura, had power of decision for the whole of Berlin, even though its decisions could only be impemented in the Western Sectors, due to Soviet obstruction. This power of decision lasted until the last meeting on 2 October 1990, therefore there was no legal way that the Soviet Sector of Berlin could be declared the capital of the Soviet Zone of Occupation. The East Germans would have been far better served to have selected Weimar as their capital. This city at least had the kudos of it's connections with the first democratic republic on German soil.
 
D

Deleted 60082

Guest
Bugsy, would you please desist in future with your asinine usage of the term "Berlin, Capital of the GDR". The terms of the London Protocol of 12 September 1944 relating to Berlin were:



As we know the French were subsequently allocated a zone in Germany and a sector in Berlin (both in territory ceded by their western allies). As we also know, the Soviets walked out of the Kommandatura on 20 March 1948, forcing it to operate de facto on a Three Power basis. However, as the absence of the Soviet Commandant was interpreted not as a veto but as an abstention from voting, the Kommandatura, operating on a Three Power basis but de jure a Four Power Kommandatura, had power of decision for the whole of Berlin, even though its decisions could only be impemented in the Western Sectors, due to Soviet obstruction. This power of decision lasted until the last meeting on 2 October 1990, therefore there was no legal way that the Soviet Sector of Berlin could be declared the capital of the Soviet Zone of Occupation. The East Germans would have been far better served to have selected Weimar as their capital. This city at least had the kudos of it's connections with the first democratic republic on German soil.
But, but, but...Bugsey will say you are wrong.
 

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
Bugsy, would you please desist in future with your asinine usage of the term "Berlin, Capital of the GDR". The terms of the London Protocol of 12 September 1944 relating to Berlin were:
As we know the French were subsequently allocated a zone in Germany and a sector in Berlin (both in territory ceded by their western allies). As we also know, the Soviets walked out of the Kommandatura on 20 March 1948, forcing it to operate de facto on a Three Power basis. However, as the absence of the Soviet Commandant was interpreted not as a veto but as an abstention from voting, the Kommandatura, operating on a Three Power basis but de jure a Four Power Kommandatura, had power of decision for the whole of Berlin, even though its decisions could only be impemented in the Western Sectors, due to Soviet obstruction. This power of decision lasted until the last meeting on 2 October 1990, therefore there was no legal way that the Soviet Sector of Berlin could be declared the capital of the Soviet Zone of Occupation. The East Germans would have been far better served to have selected Weimar as their capital. This city at least had the kudos of it's connections with the first democratic republic on German soil.
What the fück are you on about. shitlips? Who gives a fück what you want? More than 16 million people called the capital of their country "Berlin, Capital of the GDR" yet you opine I should go against that? Just do one, twät-fäce! Who the fück do think you are?

MsG
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
Bugsy, would you please desist in future with your asinine usage of the term "Berlin, Capital of the GDR". The terms of the London Protocol of 12 September 1944 relating to Berlin were:



As we know the French were subsequently allocated a zone in Germany and a sector in Berlin (both in territory ceded by their western allies). As we also know, the Soviets walked out of the Kommandatura on 20 March 1948, forcing it to operate de facto on a Three Power basis. However, as the absence of the Soviet Commandant was interpreted not as a veto but as an abstention from voting, the Kommandatura, operating on a Three Power basis but de jure a Four Power Kommandatura, had power of decision for the whole of Berlin, even though its decisions could only be impemented in the Western Sectors, due to Soviet obstruction. This power of decision lasted until the last meeting on 2 October 1990, therefore there was no legal way that the Soviet Sector of Berlin could be declared the capital of the Soviet Zone of Occupation. The East Germans would have been far better served to have selected Weimar as their capital. This city at least had the kudos of it's connections with the first democratic republic on German soil.
The East German government used to refer to East Berlin as the capital in all their propaganda, tourist tat and of course the state controlled press and media had to comply.
Much as they would like to, this did nothing to stop the outside world from realising they were just trying to deflect from the fact that the whole of East Germany was just the Soviet occupied zone and Berlin itself was entirely controlled by the 4 Allied powers.
Many East Germans from the sticks resented the fact that much more money was spent on the infrastructure in the "show case" capital, than elsewhere in East Germany.
Bugsy's continual reference to "Berlin capital of the GDR" nearly 30 years after unification, just shows what an idiot he is.
 
I found this propaganda film from the GDR quite pertinent, given the current UK Brexit discussions.

The USSR and Poland are happily importing useful things like tractors and coal. Happy cheerful music.
But wait - what's this?! Filthy Nazi Porn from The West. Cowboy magazines and US dollars! Music becomes rather frightening...


Watching dated propaganda like this does emphasise the current nonsense that we are being drip fed by our own Establishment today.
Nothing new there, brings back memories. Doing the ICE training courses Hamburg 2000. Pretty much the same as Eurostars, vehicle rummage, passenger control.
 
It didn't work like that, Acid_Reign. There had to be indisputable evidence from a number of Stasi departments before such permissions were handed out. Everything in writing and in triplicate, so to speak. Moreover, the suspicion had to be based on surveillance over more than three months. All that was explained to me in about 1995 by an ex-Stasi officer formerly stationed in Berlin, Capital of the GDR, Oberst (General) Wolfgang Schmidt, who was the head of "Department XI" responsible for liaison with the so-called factory combat groups (Betriebskampfgruppen) in the GDR.

MsG
Why would an ex stasi officer (or frankly, anyone for that matter) talk to a lying smelly old tramp like yourself?
 

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
Why would an ex stasi officer (or frankly, anyone for that matter) talk to a lying smelly old tramp like yourself?
Maybe they've the same deranged, psychotic obsession as you, spackerman.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

You've spent the last 12 years taking every opportunity possible to post your moronic shite whenever I appear on a thread, spackerinski. Everyone's growing tired of your stupidity, shitlips. Why not give it a rest, instead of permanently attempting to derail threads? It's quite obvious that you're very deeply disturbed there, fella. I mean which halfways mature and responsible person would waste 12 years on a zero result, as you've done.

MsG
 
Maybe they've the same deranged, psychotic obsession as you, spackerman.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

You've spent the last 12 years taking every opportunity possible to post your moronic shite whenever I appear on a thread, spackerinski. Everyone's growing tired of your stupidity, shitlips. Why not give it a rest, instead of permanently attempting to derail threads? It's quite obvious that you're very deeply disturbed there, fella. I mean which halfways mature and responsible person would waste 12 years on a zero result, as you've done.

MsG
As long as you are not bothered eh Bugsy?

Acid-Reign claims to be new and so will not be aware of your many fibs over the years, the obvious one being that the British Army topped your family once in 1975 then dug them up to top them again in 1978.
But fear not, I'll be right here quoting your many contradicting lies.
 

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
As long as you are not bothered eh Bugsy?

Acid-Reign claims to be new and so will not be aware of your many fibs over the years, the obvious one being that the British Army topped your family once in 1975 then dug them up to top them again in 1978.
But fear not, I'll be right here quoting your many contradicting lies.
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist it, spackerman! Anything for a bit of sorely needed attention, eh? That's why you insist on your flights of deranged fantasy, while at the same time derailing the thread. It's your SOP - and not just with me.

Let's face it, who in their right mind spends 12 solid years pursuing an anonymous person across the threads of an anonymous website and not achieving anything with it. Still, you're so terminally dense that you won't even have noticed that, eh, spackerinski? I could, probably, understand doing it for, say, a couple of weeks, or even a couple of months at a stretch. But 12 years? There's definitely something very strange going on in your bird-brain, mush. Maybe that's because your brain isn't what it used to be. It used to be your large intestine; which explains all the shite you post.

MsG
 

Latest Threads

Top