Compare the Roles and the importance for development of post-war Germanyof any two of the following; Konrad Adenauer, Ludwig Erhard, Walter Ulbricht.

However, it must be considered the role others had in the economic growth of West Germany. It was Erhard’s policy of the ‘Social Market Economy’ which significantly improved the economy, as well being able to use the resources available to him with great effect. West Germany had the Ruhr also to its advantage, as well the help of the USA. President Truman of America must also take a large amount of credit for the economic prosperity of the period, as the Marshall Plan enabled Germany to fund the economy in the western zone. The unification of the British and American zones (Bizonia) furthered the economic advancement of Western Germany, yet wasn’t a result of Adenauer’s policies but in the interests of the British and the Americans in light of the cold war. The Korean War helped improve the economy as it provided them with the opportunity to make arms for the West. However, this was not a result of Adenauer’s diplomacy but of major Western Powers using Germany as a weaponry base and trading power, although credit still has to go to Adenauer for keeping good diplomatic relations with its western Allies. The Western German’s stable economy was also largely to do with the centralisation of the banking system following the establishment of Bizonia. Adenauer’s popularity was largely down to the economic success, which we have seen is clearly down to the policies of Erhard and the West’s funding, i.e. America. Despite this, Adenauer was still very successful.

In contrast to this, Walter Ulbricht was relatively unsuccessful in creating a prosperous East Germany on the scale of which Adenauer managed, which is important as the failure to do so meant the people of East Germany would want to go to the West. One of the key failures of the East was that it often failed to reach the level of economic equality that a communist state entailed. Because of this Ulbricht never gained the support that the West had. By being so closely linked to the USSR also meant the divide between East and West was further increased especially in light of the Cold War. Ulbricht regularly used intimidation and propaganda tactics to establish control which was very similar to Nazi methods used before the divide. This was also showed by them gaining control of the police, judicial system as well as using education to reinforce its message. Propaganda was mainly used to ridicule the West, which seemed ‘strangely familiar to the Nazi regime, despite communism being the very political system Hitler set out to destroy. When Ulbricht planned to raise working hours of industrial workers, his unpopularity came to a head. At the same time food prices were increasing amid high taxation. A general strike followed with showed the unpopularity of Ulbricht, which ended when 21 protesters were killed. Following this, Ulbricht hung onto power, but without gaining any support, and people still resented his policies, and the fact the standard of living in West Germany was still considerably higher than the east’s. The USSR stripped its zone of much of its economic infrastructure and by 1950 25% of industrial goods went straight to the USSR. East Germany was also forced to trade with economically backward countries to its positioning in Europe, meaning it couldn’t exploit the industrial heartland of the Ruhr which was in West Germany. Industrial production quotas underestimated possible production output which meant targets were met, or forced industries to over produce and ignore the purchasing of new equipment. The collectivisation of agriculture was unpopular amongst farmers and lead to disastrous effects on food supplies. This was also the cause of the large wave of emigration to the West because people were not prepared to accept food shortages and rising prices. The East did not meet the economic prosperity of the FRG, which angered East Germans greatly. The emigration to the West led to an increased strain on the East German economy, losing valuably skilled workers. This led to the closing of the border between East and West- the Berlin Wall. The fact East Germany was a one party state also angered East Germans and led people to resent the regime, showing the unpopularity of Ulbricht.

However, Ulbricht was not all doom and gloom for the East Germans. The economic boom of the late 50’s meant wages exceeded the levels of 1939, as well as living conditions improving, and they soon became the best in the Soviet bloc, despite this, East German  people were still not happy that conditions in West Germany were better. Statistics also show that the number of emigrants decreased roughly from around 1956, showing that people were relatively prosperous during the late 50’s. Therefore Ulbricht had done relatively well in creating a fairly good economy, even though it was not as good as the West’s, considering the fact its economic infrastructure had been removed by the USSR, it was forced to trade with economically backward countries and was unable to exploit the Ruhr. Therefore his effect on the GDR was relatively positive.

Adenauer, like Ulbricht could also be criticised. He abandoned de-Nazification due to needing them in his government, which meant members of the Nazi party still remained in control of the West. This link to the Nazi’s was also re-enforced after the Spiegel Affair, when Adenauer supported the raid on the offices of the magazine the Spiegel. Outcries followed about the disregard for a free press and these methods were similar to the Third Reich, not a free democracy. It is also evident that Adenauer’s policies were uncompromising to the GDR, which in turn helped him to lose support of the FDP who had split any way, meaning he was replaced by Erhard.

In conclusion it is clear to see that Adenauer’s West Germany was far more prosperous than Ulbricht’s East. The development of the East lagged behind the West, mainly due to the diplomatic relations Adenauer created with its western allies. His contribution to the West Germany was incredibly positive, helping to develop and modernise Germany, even if he did it with the help of Erhard and Adenauer. His skills were shown to be greater than Erhard when Erhard replaced Adenauer in 1963 and was forced to resign himself inn 1966 having over reacted to signs of inflation. His East German counterpart failed to reproduce anything like the prosperity of the West in the East, and it was Ulbricht’s alliance with the Soviet’s that led to the further divide of the two and eventually the Berlin Wall. Historians differ on the two leaders of east and West Germany. Those who were brought up in East Germany were effected by anti capitalist propaganda and the evils of capitalism, therefore critical of Adenauer. Whereas those who were brought up in West Germany had an anti totalitarian ideology, therefore were critical of the east and Ulbricht. Their emphasis would be on the promotion of free democracies and distancing themselves from Nazism. Therefore there are many different interpretations on as to the success of Adenauer and Ulbricht.