The Berlin Wall's fall and the end of Cold War ideological conflict in Europe

Communism and Soviet Union -- The approach might be to look at how the fall of the Berlin Wall was carried or treated throughout the world via the media

Postwar Geopolitical Conflict in Europe

The post Second World War Scenario brought social transformations throughout Europe. Some of these transformations had been peaceful while others had been violent. The forces of liberalism and socialism had gone head to head not just in the theoretical world but also in the political and financial circles. However, all these battles came to an abrupt halt after the fall of Moscow and subsequently the Berlin Wall in 1989. Werz (2001) asserts, "The tremendous and often violent social transformations during the "age of the extremes" are difficult enough to grasp. Yet the shock of 1989 not only abruptly ended the cold war but also terminated the static confrontation of liberalism and socialism that had informed European political practices and theoretical debates since the late nineteenth century. Further complicating matters, many ideologically charged categories have lost their immediate utility with the collapse of the socialist regimes (Werz, 2001)."

Nationalism and mythologies related to it had been replaced by two distinct ideologies, socialism and liberalism. Both these ideologies had found deep roots within Europe. However, in 1989, once the fall of Moscow was evident, both ideologies were soon replaced by nation state theories both in Eastern Europe, as well as Western Europe. Werz (2001) asserts, "The irony of history lies in the reactualization of ethnonational terms; as much as 1989 represented the second demythologization of Europe by ending the block confrontation; it instantly led to a surge of new national mythologies, most visibly in the eastern European societies as well as in the west (Werz, 2001)."

The Evolution of the Berlin Wall

In Germany families existed on both sides of the Berlin Wall. When East Germany decided to adapt socialism as its political order, most workers migrated from East to West Germany. The Berlin Wall had been constructed to stop the flow of workers from the newly built socialist state. However, immediately after its creation, the two global powers came on the brink of a nuclear war. Taylor (2007) asserts, "The building of the Berlin Wall in August 1961 divided families and neighborhoods in what had been the capital of Germany. The Wall represents a uniquely squalid, violent, and ultimately futile, episode in the postwar world. And we know that the subsequent international crisis, which was especially intense during the summer and autumn of 1961, threatened the world with the risk of a military conflict, one that seemed as if it could escalate at any time into nuclear confrontation between the U.S. And the Soviet Union (Taylor, 2007)."

Subsequently, Taylor (2007) questions the motives of the western democracies who had positioned themselves as the morally correct and noble and the socialist regime as evil and aggressive. He accuses, like many other historians, the western democracies for the evolution and rise of Berlin Wall. He argues, "In 1945, the victors of the Second World War, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Britain and by special dispensation the French had divided Germany into four zones of occupation and its capital, Berlin, into four sectors. To the wartime Allies, Germany had been a problem ever since its unification in 1871, a big, restless country in the heart of Europe. The over-mighty Germany of the Kaiser's and Hitler's time must never be allowed to re-emerge (Taylor, 2007)."

After the end of the Second World War Germany became the center of conflict between Communism and Capitalism. This turned out to be more evident after the creation of the Berlin Wall where on one hand, a socialist state namely, "German Democratic Republic," and on the other hand, a capitalist state namely, "Federal Republic of Germany" existed. Taylor (2007) reveals, "Then came the Cold War. From the late 1940s, Germany itself -- what was left of it after the Poles and the Russians had carved chunks off its eastern territories -- became a creature of the Communist-capitalist conflict. It divided into West Germany (the 'Federal Republic of Germany') and the smaller East Germany (the 'German Democratic Republic'), the former a prosperous democracy of some 50 million anchored into what was to become the Western NATO alliance, the latter a struggling social experiment, a third as large, allied to the Communist Warsaw Pact. The Iron Curtain ran through Germany, with a fortified border between the two Cold War German states (Taylor, 2007)."

Media's role in the fall of the wall

Loshitzky (1997) in his study analyzed the role of media, before, during and after the Berlin Wall fell. On one hand the media was showing "raw" footage of people celebrating the fall of the communist regime and on the other it was infusing its rhetoric of having the superior social order, capitalism. He writes, "Television's celebrations of the fall of the Wall represent, like the celebrations triggered by the revolutions in Eastern Europe, and in Czechoslovakia and Romania in particular, a unique mixture of live broadcasting transmitting 'raw slices' of revolution in the making, and a well-tailored staging of 'media events' epitomized by the two concerts, one rock and one classical, which were broadcast worldwide. This blend of the 'raw' and the 'cooked' intensified the drama of the unfolding events by exploiting the advantages of both genres (Loshitzky, 1997)."

The "raw" footage of television exhibited enthusiasm, closeness, and an atmosphere of validity and accuracy. However, the "designed" footage, particularly that of the two concerts, complimented the raw events and gave them deeper and broader meaning. However, Loshitzky (1997) reviews another side of this story and questions the motives of the western media. He quotes, "It is interesting to note that the media "noise" surrounding the fall of the Wall was absent from its construction. This absence is significant because it makes the task of exploring the symbolic meaning of television's celebrations of the fall all the more urgent. In our media-saturated society, one is tempted to ask what would have happened if CNN had been operating on 13 August 1961, the day the construction of the Berlin Wall began."

During the construction of the Berlin Wall, John Kennedy had been the President of the United States. At that time he had been in Hyannis Port getting ready to go for a sailing trip. Despite hearing the news, he continued with his trip and did not cancel it. Loshitzky (1997) argues, "Would Kennedy have behaved differently had the beginning of the crisis been covered around the clock by CNN and the other networks? Would a repeated 'bombardment' of images of the ring of Soviet troops surrounding the city, the reserve troops in their barracks ready to take to the streets of Berlin, the Vopos (units of the People's Police of the GDR) unrolling barbed wire along the whole length of the frontier between East and West Berlin, and the explosive crowds massing on both sides of the sector border have influenced the opinion of Western public and decision makers to the extent of provoking American military intervention?"

The author concludes that the rise of Berlin Wall, even though was apparently opposed by western democracies, secretly they wanted to keep Germany divided and in check. Therefore no media coverage had been given to rise of Berlin Wall. However, it falling also marked the end of an "evil" social order. This event triggered mass celebrations, some of which had been "cooked" by the media while others had been completely "natural."

Resolution of Issues

November 9, 1989 saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and it also marked a special occasion in for German families, which had been divided, ever since the wall had been erected in 1961. Bohn and Berntsen (2007) assert that almost all outstanding issues between the East and West Germany had been resolved subsequent to the fall. In fact, East Germany had also decided to build a memoir. Some issues however stirred up heated debates. This was particularly true when some quarters in Germany called for, "a Berlin memorial to the six million Jews who died in Europe during the Second World War (Loshitzky, 1997)." This issue, along with other issues, however, had been peacefully resolved with no more German blood being spilt (Loshitzky, 1997).

Retrospective Analysis and Conclusion

From the information presented above, it is clear that media had been extremely biased in its coverage of the fall of the Berlin wall. To begin with, it did not cover the events that led to its creation. During its fall, it only brought forth those footings that supported its stance of being the morally-correct social order in World. Bitter rivals of the Soviet social order, the United States and their Nato allies used this occasion to support their political stance of being the forces of good.