Ideology play an important role in a nation’s politics, but too often conversations regarding ideology discuss the ideology themselves and not the people who embrace them. In this episode, I will explore the history and minds of people in Berlin (a city literally split in half due to cold war ideological rivalries) and Slovakia (a country that embraced capitalism with vigor after the cold war).
Hello everyone and welcome to the fourth episode of Baggage Allowance. In the last episode, I shared my observation of how Japanese and European peoples choose to remember and present their history. I hinted, especially with regards to the European Union, that the way people interpret their history often reflects their political affiliation. Something else that is reflected in people’s political affiliation is their ideology. In this episode, I want to explore how people chose to interpret and subscribe to various ideologies. And there is no better place to do that than in Berlin. So lets begin.
At the end of WW2 Germany was divided in two, between the capitalist West Germany and the communist East Germany. Berlin was fully inside communist East Germany, but because it was the capital, the western half of the city belonged to West Germany. Imagine if Texas succeeded from the union to become its own country, but half of Austin remained part of the United States. West Germany held on with the hope the country will eventually reunify, but until then, they operated their capital out of the city of Bonn, which was fulling inside West German territory.
Thanks to American help, West Germany rebuilt faster, had more freedom, and more wealth, so 3 million East Germans fled into West Germany in the years following the war. To stop people from leaving, the Soviet Union built a wall separating East and West Germany. The main wall cut through farmland and villages down the middle of Germany, but in Berlin, streets were torn up and building demolished to make room for the wall. Anyone attempting to jump over the wall was shot on site by stationed soldiers. Due to its intrusiveness and visibility, the Berlin Wall became a cold war icon, and soon after it fell, the Soviet Union itself collapsed, ending the cold war.
I have been to Berlin twice. My first visit was during my teenage backpacking trip. I met up with a German friend I made in Finland a few months before. She really loved the alternative parts of Berlin, so I spent a lot of time in what I would describe as the Berlin version of the Bronx. I forgot the exact location, but it was certainly not representative of the city as whole. It was not even representative of how the city wanted to present itself; I only passed by Brandenburg gate, spent no time on Museum Island, and was far away from the Riksdag. I only noticed two things that I could say described the city as a whole. One was the sheer number of holocaust memorials. And two was the architecture of the city. Having just been to Prague, Dresden, and several cities in Poland, I was expecting a specific kind of architecture, with lots of color, statues, and intricate window sills. However, Berlin was a far more modern city, and I would more quickly associate it with American cities like New York than a typical European city.
I had a great time, but I knew I had to visit the city again. That chance came a few years later, and it happened to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Berlin wall’s collapse. I barely noticed the Berlin wall’s former existence on my first visit, but this time the divide between East and West Berlin was very obvious and imposing. It was on everyone’s mind, and while the anniversary was still a few months out, businesses in the city were already dressing up for the occasion. The hostel I stayed at was on a street that 30 years ago wasn’t a street, but a wall. The hostel made good use of that fact. The main lobby had a huge wall to wall map showing the divided city. The front desk, bar, and reception area all revolved around the Berlin wall theme.
During this second visit, I came to the city with friends but got food poisoning and excused myself early. At my hostel, I had a bunkbed and shared the room with 8 other people. I didn’t want to disturb my roommates, so I waited in the lobby area for my stomach to calm down. While waiting, I watched a German documentary (with English subtitles) on the TV about the reunification of Germany. I had to constantly run to the toilet, so I didn’t retain much of what the documentary was saying, but there was one moment I do remember. They showed a husband and wife, originally from East Germany, who moved to the West after reunification and started a family. Their daughter was I estimate about 12 years old. After living in the western parts of Germany for nearly two decades though, they decided to pack up and move back to what would have been East Germany. That got my attention. Both husband and wife admitted that they had to take lower paying jobs in order to move. The daughter didn’t say much, though it was clear that if it were her choice, she would have stayed. Why would a couple who put in so much effort to leave former East Germany, acquire well paying jobs, and raise a daughter in the West, want to return? The couple said the people where they live now are too greedy and cold. By contrast, East Germany had a better sense of community. That sounded very familiar. I am pretty sure I heard or read something similar in Communist propaganda. But this couple wasn’t just spewing old party loyalties. After all, they didn’t waste any time moving to the West after reunification. Not exactly the behavior I would expect from party loyalists. Something else was going on.
When I met my German friend again a couple of days later, I prodded her with questions regarding East Germany and reunification. One interesting detail I learned was that people from East Germany have a different accent, so it is possible to tell if someone came from there. Accents and local identity matter a lot in Germany, and she implied that the East German accent is looked down on. East Germans are happy to return the favor with their own stereotypes it seems.
Still, she and I think most Germans are happy about reunification. She showed me a video of Bornholmer stasse, the first checkpoint between east and west Germany to open, permanently. It is a very moving video, and both of us had water in our eyes watching it. I asked her whether there was any movement of people going the other way. Did any West German want to visit East Germany, perhaps to see family? She almost laughed. No one wanted to go back, she replied. Before I left, she showed me on a map of a trail I could take near Lubeck. The trail follows the path the wall used to take. This was not part of the Berlin wall, but rather the larger wall that cut through the center of Germany.
Despite still being sick in my stomach, I went on this hike. Apart from the occasional tower, any remnant of the wall was systemically and totally removed. Usually, when looking up videos about German reunification, one is first presented with videos of the Berlin wall coming down, which was an impromptu demolition by the people using whatever tools they could find. However, if you dig for it, there are also videos showing the demolition of the wall outside of Berlin. These were organized. Crews came with bulldozers and earth movers with orders to make sure nothing remained. While following the path of the old wall, I had to constantly check my gps to see if I was still on the correct path. Those demolition crews were thorough.
All this added further contradiction to that documentary clip I saw earlier. When I got home, I started researching German reunification, demographics, and politics. I kept messaging my German friend for context and explanations. Here’s the summary: the divide between East and West Germany is still alive today. The Soviets built the wall to prevent young and educated people from leaving the East to the West. When the wall fell, nothing was holding them back anymore. The economy suffered, and for those left behind, their best hope was that some West German firm opened a factory or business in their town. Woman especially began leaving to find love and stability in the West. Pundits use these facts to explain the popularity of authoritarian political parties (both communist and fascist) in the East.
However, I am not satisfied with the answer “it’s the economy stupid.” For all their economic woes, people in the East are still materially better off. That family who moved back to the East would live very comfortably by taking advantage of their West German savings account and East German prices. And even those who stayed in the East are still to this day receiving reconstruction money and tax breaks from the German government. Dresden for example was burned to the ground in WWII by American firebombing campaigns. While under East German control, many buildings, including the main church, remained as ruins. Reconstruction did not begin until after reunification, and many buildings were still being rebuilt during my last visit, which was 25 year after reunification.
This all kept puzzling me until I met a French classical musician, living in Sweden. An older man nearing retirement, he went on many tours behind the iron curtain, including East Germany and the Soviet Union. While on tour, the authorities would assign him a place to stay. Usually this would be something like a university dorm, where he is greeted with great enthusiasm by the resident students. The students tried very hard to impress him. They would organize a feast, with the main dish being some sort of cabbage. Cabbage soup was most common. They would run around mad trying to find something more exotic like wine. By contrast, he once stayed with the wife of an officer in the Soviet army. Due to her husband’s status, she got an id card that allowed her to visit special shops that carried a wide variety of exotic goods, like imported cheese, jams, drinks, and spices like cardamon.
For a country that claims to uphold an ideology that ensured the poor don’t get abused by the rich, the inequality the Frenchman described was painful ironic. Now to be fair, much of what he was describing was the Soviet Union in 1980s, shortly before its complete collapse. His description of East Germany by contrast was not as extreme. In comparison to other communist states, including the Soviet Union itself, East Germany had probably the highest standard of living. Having witnessed life behind the iron curtain, I asked the French musician whether he found it strange that people who lived in East Germany would be nostalgic for the old days. “I completely understand that,” he replied. Huh? You just finished describing to me Soviet living standards, and how you were constantly escorted by police on your tours. Why are you not surprised?
“Because they probably feel like shit. In Germany, they are just poor people at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Back then, they were East Germans.”
He then showed me a news clip, on Youtube, again from 1989. But this time, the reporter was interviewing a woman driving the opposite direction. The driver was East German. When the borders opened, she rushed to West Germany, but by the next morning, she was driving back into East Germany. I hadn’t seen this clip before.
“Why are going back?” The reporter asked.
“I just wanted to visit. I have work tomorrow.”
A commentator mentioned how there were many people like her, and how they were challenging a view held by many West Germans about East Germany. Until then, people in West Germany were only seeing those fleeing East Germany. The news always depicted East Germans getting shot, beaten, or arrested trying to escape to West Germany. Their impression was that everyone wanted to leave, but that most were just too scared. That was not necessarily the case though. East Germans wanted to travel to West Germany, visit family, tour the cities, maybe go shopping or have a beer. They wanted that freedom, but beyond that, what did they have in West Germany? Their family was in East Germany. They had a house, probably a car, food in the fridge. What did they have in West Germany?
As we kept talking, things started to click. There were those who wanted to flee East Germany. Those who had ambitions that could never be realized in the East. Those who had run-ins with the Stazi. Those who for one reason or another found themselves trapped in bureaucratic limbo. Those people wanted to flee. But for many other people, the system worked good enough. For them, reunification replaced a system that they were familiar with, with one that was alien to them. And it, virtually overnight, got rid of their identity and threw their social hierarchy into disarray.
Now, I don’t want to be guilty of false equivalency. There are functional and consequential differences between the East and West German systems, and the communist or capitalist systems they embodied. However, when it comes to things like ideology, people are not subscribing to them after careful analysis of the theory and understanding of history. They may study history and follow the news, but they learn the subject just well enough to repeat the main talking points. To be able to repeat cliché historical tropes or quote the wise men of their ideology. In reality, people subscribe to ideologies based on their social affiliations, and whether that affiliation works well enough for them.
The information I read about East Germans need careful interpretation. No matter the economic promises, I doubt any citizen of former East Germany desire the reinstatement of policies like travel restrictions, the Stazi, or even the country of East Germany itself. However, for many, reunification did not work out as well as they thought it would, despite their attempts at integration into the West German majority. If integration with the West German majority isn’t an option, then the only alternative is to rebuild their East German identity again. And so they subscribe to a revised version of the old ideology they once shared, despite whatever bad memories or hardships it reminds them of.
This tendency of human nature is quite fascinating. Ideology is a packaged deal; it contains many ideas, rules, and norms that go against one’s own desires and interests. Yet people are surprisingly willing to accept these, because they want to remain affiliated with those who also subscribe to that system. In the case of East Germans, even if their economy miraculously recovered proving once and for all that the West German system works, if this is not accompanied with more integration, they will still find ways to distinguish themselves and what their doing, their ideology, from their West German counterparts.
This is not purely speculative, for I have witnessed this very in thing in Slovakia. Years ago, I had a Slovak professor who taught Public Administration and Policy. While Slovakia wasn’t the main subject of the class, she would often site her homeland as an object lesson for good and bad policy decisions. I learned a lot about Slovakia in that class. Here is the oversimplified, narrative version: When the nations of Eastern Europe abandoned communism, the communist party and all their loyalists didn’t just suddenly disappear, nor were they all killed. There was a lot of political shuffling, but the old guard made their way into new political parties, new government bureaucracies, and some jumped ship into state owned companies that would soon be privatized. This meant East European nations still had one foot in the old ways of doing things, and that reflected in their new constitutions, laws, and political parties.
Slovakia however was a bit different. It was once part of a bigger nation, Czechoslovakia. Soon after abandoning communism, the Czechoslovakia split into two nations: the Czech Republic and Slovakia in what was possibly the most peaceful divorce settlement I have ever heard of. That said, the capital of Czechoslovakia, Prague, was now the capital of the Czech Republic, meaning most of the political establishment (including the old communist guard) remained in Prague. So the Slovaks were unrestrained when it came to drafting their new institutions. And they so hated the Soviet way of doing things that they swung the pendulum far in the opposite direction on basically everything.
The Soviet system was characterized by over-centralization, so the Slovaks drew local districts so small you could fit everyone in it on a bus. The Soviet system had a dictator and effectively one party rule, so the Slovaks embraced democracy with such enthusiasm that this country of 5 million people has seen nearly 100 political parties come and go in just 20 years of national elections. It has slowed down since then, but even today, Slovak politics is characteristic in having a very dynamic list of political parties. Many won’t get a seat in parliament, but they have presence in local offices. Finally, and most importantly, the Soviet system was characterized by over-regulation and bureaucracy, so they pursued without reservation liberalization and laissez faire capitalism. This made them an attractive place to do business, and lots of foreign companies, especially car manufacturers, took advantage of this opportunity to set up shop there. The economic boom that followed was championed at the time as an object lesson of how an East European state can prosper by embracing Western ideology. This national boom even got its own name, the “Tatra Tiger.” And that right there is the beginning of the problem.
Now, want I am about to describe is not in any ways representative of Slovakia as a whole. There are huge regional disparities, economically, ethnically, and otherwise. However, just follow along. This adventure began because I wanted to hike the Tatra mountains. When I arrived at my hostel, there was no lock box or receptionist to collect the keys from. There wasn’t even a phone number to call. I just had to wait in the lobby for one of the other guests to arrive, and he just showed me to my room, where my keys waited on the bed. No id check, nothing. Another hostel guest found this so sketchy that she took a taxi to Bratislava (the capital), refusing to stay the night. When I need to withdraw cash, none of the ATMs accepted foreign cards. When I asked the tourist information office what to do, they had no idea. I ended up using only my card, no cash. When I passed by a parked police car, the officers got out to ask who I was and what I was doing in a residential neighborhood. I said I was a tourist and pointed out that official city tourist map showed this as a “scenic path.” When they saw my American passport, they got so scared they couldn’t jump back into their patrol car fast enough. When we saw each other at the train station a few days later, they briskly walked in the opposite direction. That by the way is a once in a lifetime experience, to see a cop run away from you.
Now, I must stress, the capital Bratislava is no where near as isolated as the rest of the country, but even when I was there, it was easy to feel like I was the only foreign tourist around. Despite embracing liberal democracy and capitalism, arguably even more strongly than Western European nations themselves, Slovakia never really integrated with the people of Western Europe. A good indication of this is the fact that, even today, Slovakia has lower unemployment than Western European nations like Sweden, Finland, and France, but there is almost no immigration of people from these places, despite laws that make it very easy for them to do so. It is not due to lower wages either, around Bratislava, their GDP per capita is nearly twice the EU average, the cost of living is lower, and even a lower salary beats unemployment. Now statistics are complicated, and I don’t want to paint a picture that Slovakia has an economy stronger than it actually does: it is still a fragile export economy, but when compared to other EU nations, it is still doing quite well. This is what I mean by a lack of integration. While some policy makers put the “Tatra Tiger” on a pedestal, at the end of the day that is all they were to them. They didn’t even visit as tourists.
This is not inconsequential, because it prevents cultural exchange and excludes Slovakia from the public conversation. When the Great Recession hit, their export economy was shot, and the EU was too preoccupied with other problems. The young and the educated, like my professor, left to the West for better opportunity. Does that sound familiar? Fortunately for Slovakia, this was only temporary, but their enthusiasm to embrace and integrate with the EU was tapered by this experience. And as for the EU, Slovakia became a lost opportunity, a nation that so eagerly embraced the West’s ideology, only to become “Flyover Country”.
To this day, Slovakia is at a crosswords, unable to decide what ideology to embrace. At times it seems to be regressing to old ideologies, only to flip positions a year or so later. They, like East Germany, are realizing that they won’t be able to fully integrate with the West even if they adopt Western ideology. Being a “Tatra Tiger” did not save them from that fate. The distance between peoples do not disappear simply because they share a good economy, and integration is more that just sharing an ideology. However, a good indication that integration has failed is if ideologies begin to polarize.
I will end the episode here, though I wish to continue on the topic of integration in the next episode, this time focusing on culture instead of ideology. Thanks for listening. Until next time.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS