All this week my mind has been preoccupied with East Germany. The essay is making me grab my hair and tear it out painfully. I am rather confused with what historians are trying to debate and honestly I am trying to figure out what, if any, were there different causes or "approaches" to the revolution of 1989. It seems so far after checking goodness gracious 25 books about the top down apporoach as well as the significant mass movements within East German that shook the foundations of the regime. I am debating very seriously how much can the revolution in East Germany during 1989 needs to be analyzed or debated? What really baffles me honestly is the question of whether the events in East Germany was truly a revolution? Revolution according to Webster dictionary: : a sudden, radical, or complete change or b : a fundamental change in political organization.
In my opinion, 1989 events in East Germany was both an external and internal revolution. There was a suddenly a radical change in the political environment. In fact an entire entity that existed on the map was destroyed. So honestly, historians who argue whether this is a revolution classical or non-classical, ordinary people will agree that communism ended and reunification was achieved with them protesting in the streets and breaking down the wall-- all happening live on tv.
About Me
- saavman
- I graduated from the University of Georgia, majoring in broadcast journalism. Possess a strong passion for different types of music.
I think that your essay hit on one of the key areas of discussion: the top-down versus bottom-up approach towards these revolutions. While the majority of historical opinion may side with the top-dwn approach, especially for East Germany, there is still much to be said regarding the range, limits and achievements of popular activism in East Germany.
ReplyDelete