Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nosianu 660 days ago
> In fact, so deeply threatened were the new overlords in the West by the very idea that the socialist system could also produce beautiful and vibrant public spaces that they felt they just had to destroy one of its crowning achievements (the Palast der Republik, also in Berlin)

Here is some background about the GDR Palast der Republik demolition. It's German, but Google can translate that page for you: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/geschichte-... -- it's pretty interesting really, lots of details.

The GDR used 5000 tons of sprayed asbestos even though it had been banned since 1969 even in the GDR but they exempted this new project. That is why there had to be a huge asbestos removal project. It was sprayed directly onto the massive steel construction, so not easily removed. Only the bare steel shell remained at the end.

However, the argument is that they did not have to remove the Palast entirely and could have rebuild it after asbestos removal. I was inside as a GDR teenager, it sure was an impressive looking building. I'm not sure how political or technical the final decision to go ahead with its demolition was, too late now anyway, and I don't feel all that strongly about it even as ex GDR citizen. I think given that they had to pretty much completely dismantle the whole thing down to the steel skeleton makes it hard to fault them for going that one step further. The article I linked makes an argument that it should have been kept and used.

The articledoes point out though that three different Bundestag legislatures all overwhelmingly voted for the demolition, with three different sets of parliament compositions, so that it definitely was a democratic decision, and it came after lots and lot of public discussion. Even the article, voicing a different opinion, concedes that that was the case and that the democratic process was "exemplary".

That's why I think you should be careful using this example the way you did there, I don't think that the description of how that happened supports such a claim. One also has to point out that it was supported by plenty of people from the ex-GDR too, this wasn't dictated by the West Germans.

1 comments

Well yeah I was being slightly polemic in my narrative, if you will. And of course there were varying opinions on all sides of the former border.

But being as the issue was decided by Bundestag, that would mean it was ultimately decided by Wessis, by definition. Largely on the basis of it a "symbol of the Dictatorship" (and as a snub to Gysi) and all that. And as far as public opinion in the East was concerned -- I don't know if it's the last word on the matter, but we do have this one poll result at least:

   Nach einer Umfrage der Zeitschrift «Super Illu» lehnen 60 Prozent der befragten Ostdeutschen einen Palast-Abriss ab, weil damit «wieder ein Stück DDR-Geschichte plattgemacht wird». Zugleich sprach sich die Mehrheit aber für eine dauerhafte Grünfläche anstelle der historischen Schlossfassade aus. Befragt worden waren 1005 Menschen in den neuen Ländern. (tso/dpa)
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/bundestag-stimmt-endgulti...
> Zeitschrift «Super Illu»

That tabloid is hardly representative!

Right, but as the matter was never put for the locals to vote on (either through the Senat or directly) that's all we have to go on.