Was Margaret Thatcher right to fear a united Germany?

The Telegraph, UK ^ | 7:00AM BST 13 Sep 2009 | By Andrew Roberts

[OldSpice]

Documents published last week highlight the former prime minister's concern that the fall of the Berlin Wall could be a risk to Britain's national security.

"We do not want a united Germany," Margaret Thatcher told President Gorbachev at a lunch meeting in the Kremlin in September 1989, two months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. "This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the whole international situation and could endanger our security."

Among the 1,000 transcripts of Politburo and other high-level papers smuggled out of Russia by Pavel Stroilov, a researcher in the Gorbachev Foundation, and published for the first time last week – in what The Times described as a "bombshell" – was Thatcher's admission to Gorbachev that although she supported German reunification in public, in private and off-the-record she felt "deep concern" about the "big changes" afoot.

Writing of the meeting with Gorbachev, she says: "I explained to him that although Nato had traditionally made statements supporting Germany's aspiration to be reunited, in practice we were rather apprehensive."

In reply, "Mr Gorbachev confirmed that the Soviet Union did not want German reunification either. This reinforced me in my resolve to slow up the already heady pace of developments. Of course I did not want East Germans to live under Communism, but it seemed to me that a truly democratic East Germany would soon emerge and the question of reunification was a separate one, on which the wishes and interests of Germany's neighbours and other powers must be fully taken into account."

[Daniel II]

Not everyone gets it right all of the time.

She should have been more worried about multiculturalism and Islamasists invading her country.

[SoftwareEngineer]

I too had mixed feelings. On the one hand East Germany was free. On the other hand, Germany had started three major wars in less than 70 years that in the end basically killed Europe.

Had those wars not occured, Europe would have had 200 million more people today (including 10 million Jews) and socialism would not have taken hold

However, you cannot blame a man for the sins of his grandfather. I don’t blame a german today for what his grandfather did. However, as Lady Thatcher correctly points out, there is something called a National Character

[nickcarraway]

Germany started World War I?

[nickcarraway]

From a geopolitical perspective, England will always be concerned about a United Germany.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Well look at it this way, the Germans have proven it’s easier to go west than east and I doubt the U.S. or Britain would fight for the French a third time and aren’t all those trees planted in the 40’s magnificent shade trees now for them to march in???

[SolidWood]

It was a reasonable fear and not entirely outlandish. Fortunately she was wrong about this fear.

[SoftwareEngineer]

Yes, at the end of the day, they are ultimately responsible for WW I. Every major historian agrees to this point. They were itching for a fight with England and used an excuse of their alliance to jump in. The Kaiser was convinced that Germany was going to win in a matter of weeks or months and that France was going to fall again just like it had 40 some years ago. They NEVER counted on the English coming in and making a stand, nevermind us Americans joining the war.

So Germany won the Eastern Front against Russia (which settled and withdrew from the war) but lost the Western Front war

[nickcarraway]

Which major historians? Both England and Germany were expecting that their paths were leading to war. How did Germany force Russia to mobilize or the Serbian question. I am not trying to absolve Germany, but England, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany equally believed a war was coming and it would be quick. You’ve watched way to many movies to get your historical information.

[nickcarraway]

They NEVER counted on the English coming in and making a stand

Everyone knew the United Kingdom would become involved. Have you ever read the Sherlock Holmes story, The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans? In 1912, it was already accepted by the public that Germany and the United Kingdon would be at war soon.

[nickcarraway]

The United States today is welfare state that is culturally and fiscally as far to the left as it is because of our involvement in World War I.

[Nosterrex]

Germany isn't the problem. The biggest threat to Britain is Britons. We don't have to look to the history of Rome's fall to see how an empire implodes from within. In less than a hundred years, Britain went from a world empire to a glorified third world country. I'm afraid that America is headed in the same direction.

[Hawthorn]

Related discussion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2338484/posts

[STONEWALLS]

...I see a united Germany as Europe’s best hope to drive back Islam.

[STONEWALLS]

...I see a united Germany as Europe’s best hope to drive back Islam.

[eleni121]

Thatccer was absolutely right on that one! Most Germans either do not want to deal with the past nor are they willing to accept responsiblity through their foreign and domestic policies.

OTOH Britain has some major problems of its own...maybe worse than Germany’s.

[elpadre]

I have always felt that in time, the EU with Germany being the dominant nation by far, would accomplish Germany's pre- WWII goals of European domination - without firing a shot.

The only fly in the ointment is Islam's cancerous growth throughout Europe.

[baraboolaw]

it has been a pillar of Britain’s foreign polices for centuries to oppose a united Germany. Maggie was simply espousing this view.

[Yorlik803]

Germany isnt going to be starting any wars, at least in the near future. The killer combo of left weenies and crazy Muslims pretty much cut the nuts of a once proud people. And it is a shame because who knew more about fighting than the krauts. They beat the French in Franco Prussian war, they near won the first World War and lost the second world war because they adopted an evil form of goverment. But the tatics they devised and weapons they invented are still, in one way or another, being used by militaries thru out the world.

[Frantzie]

Bingo. The Germans along with the Poles, Austrians, some northern Italians and others stopped Islam at the gates of Vienna in 1683 AD.

The Austrians, Germans and Poles did most of the heavy lifting then. British did nothing.

[syriacus]

Some West Germans feared a united Germany.

[eleni121]

NO they won’t ..and that is because we are doing the fighting for them.

And they still hate are resent us.

[eleni121]

that should be: they still hate and resent us...

[Yorlik803]

They have troops in Afgahnistan, so they are fighting. But the left in Germany hates all thing Military. I have a buddy in the USAF who goes to Germany alot and he never has a problem with the locals.

[snugs]

Only in my opinion because she and and many others including my family who also feared similarly under estimated the economic problems Germany faced upon reunification. In many instances companies had to take place uneconomic and outdated factories from the East with employees who had no idea how or wanted to work in a commercial enterprise.

[plenipotentiary]

Stalin started ww2 by agreeing with Hitler to devour Poland, who’s teritorial integrity (Stalin knew), Britain and France had guaranteed.

[eleni121]

the mission there is highly unpopular.

As far as our heroes not have any problems with locals-— why would they? Germans make lots of money off us being there.

[wolf78]

Was Margaret Thatcher right to fear a united Germany?

In short: no.
I too had mixed feelings. On the one hand East Germany was free. On the other hand, Germany had started three major wars in less than 70 years that in the end basically killed Europe.

Which three wars? Greater Germany (i.e. Germany and Austria) started the second world war, that is true and undisputed. WWI started as a completely legitimate war on terror in which the western powers decided to side with the terrorists.

They were itching for a fight with England and used an excuse of their alliance to jump in.

So were England and France which used excuses of their own. Your statement is anecdotal, but delivers no proof for your theory.

[SoftwareEngineer]

EVERY major historian BAR NONE places the primary blame of WWI on the Kaiser.

This had the potential of being a regional conflict. However, the Kaiser through his policies (like the Schlieffen Plan) hastened a full scale European war.

His generals were anxious to fight the English. Read German history from the fall of Bismark to to the start of WW I. The Prussian elite had a huge chip on their shoulder about England and were anxious for their navy to destroy the British Navy.

Bismarck himself in his last days warned that the Kaiser and this Prussian elite would lead Germany to doom. He prophetically warned the Kaiser NOT to use the excuse of a Balkan incident to start a global war.

At the end of the day the blame of WW I lies on the Kaiser. He declared war on Russia and France.

[SoftwareEngineer]

They NEVER counted on the English coming in and making a stand Everyone knew the United Kingdom would become involved. Have you ever read the Sherlock Holmes story, The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans? In 1912, it was already accepted by the public that Germany and the United Kingdon would be at war soon.

The Germans expected to fight the Brits on the sea, not on the land. That was one of the biggest flaws in their planning

[SoftwareEngineer]

The United States today is welfare state that is culturally and fiscally as far to the left as it is because of our involvement in World War I.

You are absolutely right. At the end of the day if one were ever to point to one event that "destroyed" Western Civilization, it would be WW I

Let us see some of the losses due to WW I:
1. Communist Russia
2. Non elimination of Turkey
3. Holocaust of Armenians
4. Eventual Holocaust of Jews
5. Death of the British Elite
6. Socialism worldwide
7. 200 million loss of population growth in Europe
8. End of culture in Europe
and so on...

[SoftwareEngineer]

it has been a pillar of Britain’s foreign polices for centuries to oppose a united Germany. Maggie was simply espousing this view.

And for good reason. For most of the last few hundred years, Germans have caused freaking havoc in central and northern Europe

[SoftwareEngineer]

Which three wars? Greater Germany (i.e. Germany and Austria) started the second world war, that is true and undisputed. WWI started as a completely legitimate war on terror in which the western powers decided to side with the terrorists.

They were itching for a fight with England and used an excuse of their alliance to jump in.

So were England and France which used excuses of their own. Your statement is anecdotal, but delivers no proof for your theory.

The Germans started or forced to start three major wars:

1. Franco Prussian War: Bismarck was keen to bring about the war, and this is proved in his book, where HE states "I knew that a Franco-Prussian War must take place before a united Germany was formed."

2. WW I: There is not a SINGLE historian worldwide of any standing that does not place the blame of WW I on the Kaiser. I don't have to prove anything to you. Pick up ANY history book. ANY! This is like asking me to prove that man landed on the moon. Google it yourself or go to the freaking library. The Kaiser and his Prussian elite wanted war. The Germans THEMSELVES blamed the Kaiser when they threw his sorry ass out and proclaimed the Weimar Republic and sued for peace. But, let me guess, they were wrong too. The Kaiser was a peace loving fellow, who just had to DECLARE war on BOTH France and Germany because the Archduke (whom everyone hated) was shot. The Iron Chancellor Bismarck himself had warned everyone that the Kaiser was dooming the German Empire by his crazy aggressive policies prodded on by the Prussian elite that thirsted war.

Western Civilization was mortally hurt by what the Kaiser did

[wolf78]

Some West Germans feared a united Germany.

There is a joke which goes like this: If we had had a choice, we'd have preferred unification with Switzerland.

[nickcarraway]

EVERY major historian BAR NONE places the primary blame of WWI on the Kaiser.

You said that before, and I asked you to provide with a name, which you couldn't do. An example of a hostorian on your side would be German historian Fritz Fischer, but even he wouldn't go as far as you.

Winston Churchill, while not a historian, certainly had an awareness of what was going on, blamed it on Europe in general, not Germany. Samuel Willamson and Ruth Henig would be examples of other historians who wouldn't blame Germany. Niall Ferguson, in his recent book The Pity o War argues that Britain was as much to blame as Germany.

[wolf78]

There is not a SINGLE historian worldwide of any standing that does not place the blame of WW I on the Kaiser. I don't have to prove anything to you. Pick up ANY history book. ANY!

Yeah, the well known Goebbels principle: Repeat it often enough and a lie will eventually become truth. However, even using caps doesn't make your false claim more true. The facts simply don't support your view. E.g. Forster wrote about the difference between WWI and WWII: "Being both intelligent and passionate, he could distinguish between a Germany that was not much worse than England and a Germany that was devilish.".

Bismarck was keen to bring about the war, and this is proved in his book, where HE states "I knew that a Franco-Prussian War must take place before a united Germany was formed."

I wouldn't say Germany was completely blameless, but it was France that actually started the war.

The Kaiser was a peace loving fellow, who just had to DECLARE war on BOTH France and Germany because the Archduke (whom everyone hated) was shot.

First of all, the Kaiser never declared war on Germany. Neither on Britain (it was Britain which declared war). And the declaration of war against France came after France mobilized its troops against and refused to declare its neutrality. Claiming the Kaiser forced the war on a sheeplike Europe is, with all due respect, moronic.

France and Germany were basically the same in that regard. Or as they say in Germany: "That's like sorting sh*t by taste."

[syriacus]

There is a joke which goes like this: If we had had a choice, we'd have preferred unification with Switzerland.

Very interesting! :)

[Charlespg]

Russia came to aid of Serbia,which was guilty of state sponsored terrorism against Austria Hungry

[PoliticsAndSausages]

Both your arguments are short-sighted. While it can be said that Germany wanted a war in both the Franco-Prussian case and WW1, you simply ignore that the opponents wanted a war too. And everyone knows that the Kaiser was a blustering, blundering idiot, yes, but still, the cause for the first world war was not that simple.

Imagine for a second, that the crown prince of England is shot in Ireland, in, say, 1923, when most of it already was a dominion and not just some enslaved hellhole. The British demand to lead an inquiry into the death themselves, but the Irish refuse. France stands ready to defend their Irish allies. France is allied with Spain, England is allied with Germany. Everyone is ready for bloodshed. Would you expect England to back down?

[Forgotten Amendments]

I believe the whole point is being missed. She wasn't unduly concerned about a reunited Germany. Like the Bushies and the "realists" of the day, she feared "instability" above all. Bush, Baker, etc. did all they could to stop the breakup of the USSR. Remember the "Chicken Kiev" speech, when he denounced Ukraine's "suicidal nationalism"?

Ironic. Today England is pretty much East Germany.

[plenipotentiary]

The introduction of Income Tax in the UK (allegedly for the War years only) was the thin end of the wedge that led to State involvement in everything, and State dependency for half the population, ie Socialism.