Yes, a very warm welcome and thank you for the friendly reception. Thank you for being here. Angela Merkel. And congratulations to you for making it in here. Because you've noticed, even if you arrive in a limousine, this event is the center of attention. There are so many people outside the door who would love to be in here and see Angela Merkel. This morning we could read in the newsletters: She's back.
She's not just cooking potato soup in the Uckermark. She has something to say, and we're looking at so many expectant faces. We've let the tension rise to immeasurable heights. How do you explain that people are looking at you like this right now?
Well, first of all, I'm happy that you're here, but also a greeting to those who perhaps couldn't make it and now have to watch on television, or 'in the tube' as we used to say, although it's not a tube anymore today. It's interesting how idioms evolve, isn't it? It came from tube technology back in the day. For those who don't know what a television looked like in its early days. I'm trying to find a reasonable rhythm. I've remained a political citizen and naturally form my own thoughts. I'm happy when people come, when I listen, and when I speak and they listen to me, because I'm also often on book tours with my memoirs. So, yes, more than before and with joy, but also no withdrawal from public life. And when I receive an invitation, I can't accept them all, but sometimes I do come.
We're happy that you're here. You once said that Westdeutscher Rundfunk cares about Europe. Europe is important to WDR, I still know that from my time in office, we could do a whole advertising blog now. It used to be the Foreign Office, now it's the Republic together. Why is that?
So that so many people, so many young faces that you see here, get in contact with them and not just the ministry directors and employees of the public broadcasters. Good move. But the reason we are particularly happy is that you are, I believe one can say with all due distance, a great European. You are someone who knows the machine. You've spent 107 summit nights, or however many more there were, there, which Emmanuel Macron bid farewell to as a monument of Europe. Now let's just look at this Europe. The title of today's panel is 'Hope Despite Everything, Europe.' You know both sides, the 'despite everything' and the 'hope.' And when we look around Europe, we see governments that are battered. The previous governments were already very battered in Great Britain, in France, and also in Germany, but the successors are even more unpopular. Why has Germany, why has Europe apparently become a continent of worries, of fear, and also of bad mood?
Well, I wouldn't accept that as a description. If we were to look up old newspaper clippings, it wasn't always the case during my time in office that people said a great stable government is working exemplary, no disputes, and project after project is being completed. I believe that through digitalization, through the many so-called social media, it has even become more difficult to have stability. The political landscape has become much more diversified. And I would first say, every government that is in office is a government that is capable of acting, that has a mandate. And after all, the European Union, if I take the time since I left office, has proven its ability to act with the Ukraine conflict, with Russia's attack on Ukraine. Whenever decisions were necessary, Europe acted. And also, in my opinion, perhaps not yet sufficiently. There is still a lot to do, but on the other hand, things were also brought to a close that could not be brought to a close during my time in office. If I think of the Mercosur trade agreement, if I think of the trade agreement with India. We have also somewhat lowered the very high standards we sometimes had. But Europe was capable of acting, and I wish Europe that for the steps now ahead.
Is the ability to act restricted? The great German philosopher Schmidt recently said: 'Politics is currently very simple. Those who have the weapons say what happens, and the others deal with the fuel discount.' Is this the maxim under which the possibilities of a legitimate, capable-of-action government, as you just said, have clearly narrowed in recent years?
That's precisely why Europe is important, so that we can perhaps at least in our realm, in the European Union, not let this maxim apply. A certain development has emerged in which the fact that small countries are worth just as much as large ones, which is also a great principle of the United Nations, if you disregard the veto powers, and that the right of the stronger is being enforced, partly brutally. Not only those who have the weapons, also military armament, but also those who have economic power. That already began in my time with the extraterritorial sanctions that the United States of America simply announced. China also doesn't hold back where it sits at key levers. I don't want to compare the USA and China politically now. I just want to say, whoever has power is using it quite harshly at the moment. And that's precisely why it's crystal clear that not a single European country will be able to manage on its own. And that's why it's good when the European Union joins together.
Is it doing that sufficiently at the moment, or do we see much more that, for example, for individual circles. You were always a chancellor who said, if Nicolas Sarkozy and a smaller group wanted to do something, no, no, no, no. We do it in the big framework with everyone. Now we see very strongly the UK, Italy, Germany, France discussing things very strongly beforehand. Is that appropriate to the situation or is that a danger?
Yes, you're touching on a topic that I think is important, because we have a treaty on the basis of which the work of the European Union functions. That is the Lisbon Treaty. And this treaty gives the European Union with its institutions, Commission, Parliament, Council, certain competencies, and then there are areas that do not fall under European competence, for example, defense policy, but these areas are now just so important. How do I act towards Russia if I can't do anything in defense policy? This leads to so-called intergovernmental action. That means, the governments, without the European Union being responsible, join together. We did that, for example, for the Euro rescue, because we had no guidelines, also during the global financial crisis. There was no possibility for the Commission to make proposals to us, and then these coalitions of the willing naturally arise. And there is a point where one must handle this very carefully. I understand your question very well. Of course, there is always the possibility, now let's just do the four big ones and the others follow, and one must take everyone along with a great deal of sensitivity. That was always my experience, and it is of course very, very time-consuming when you always have to have 27 member states on board. You always have to say our projects are open to everyone. But then you sometimes also have to say, if someone doesn't want to participate, we'll do it anyway because we think it's right. And often that person follows a little later.
I mentioned the governments at the beginning that are not particularly popular. Behind all of them are right-wing populist forces. Nigel Farage in the UK, Jordan Bardella in France, our perhaps most important partner. And in Germany, the AfD is very strong. The French candidate Jordan Bardella, who has the best chances from the Rassemblement National to possibly succeed Emmanuel Macron, says Europe, we put national law first. Is that a perspective we are heading towards?
Well, I think we're now getting to a tricky question for Europe. One of the fundamental pillars of European cooperation is the agreement that wherever there is European law, European law takes precedence over national law. If that no longer applies, then you can put any agreement in Europe up for discussion again with a change of government. I see this danger, you've already seen it with the PiS government in Poland, that suddenly there are constitutional court decisions in a country that don't fit the European legal situation, or the European Court of Justice rules differently than a constitutional court. We were also very briefly on the verge of this in Germany when the Federal Constitutional Court, in connection with the Euro rescue, asked certain questions to the European Court of Justice. The court answered in a certain way, and then the Federal Constitutional Court responded in a way that almost brought us into conflict, and one must react to that with great sensitivity. But the principle must apply, and when Mr. Bardella says something like that, then he cannot gloss over it. He wants a European Union that is more oriented towards nation-states. That is a fundamental attack on the European Union.
Let's look, with all the experience you have politically, because everyone here in the room is naturally interested in how you view the two major conflicts right now. Let's start with what's happening in Iran right now. You congratulated Donald Trump when he became president for the first time, but you also pointed out shared values. How did you react when you heard he might want to wipe out a civilization tonight?
Well, I had already experienced in Donald Trump's first term, back then still as Chancellor, that he terminated the agreement to prevent further nuclear armament of Iran, which we had concluded internationally, the so-called JCPOA. And Germany had also worked diplomatically for many years to bring about this agreement. And I followed that back then with great unease, to say I thought it was wrong. There were always massive differences. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, for example, never approved this agreement, but I considered it a diplomatic possibility. It was only valid for 10 years, but in those 10 years to really achieve something with Iran. And I mean, the extermination of a civilization is frankly illegal under international law, and one must call it that. But fortunately, it didn't come to that, and now we hope that the ceasefire continues and can be used for talks.
Is it being called out enough? You are also a politician who weighs up what is feasible.
Yes, you have cleverly pointed me to the tip of the iceberg, namely the statement about the extermination of a civilization. Another question is, of course, and I don't want to get involved in the legal aspects of things, because I know far too little about the assessment now. I don't get the briefings anymore. What about this war? What about the threat? Israel is threatened by Iran. That is absolutely no question. I may not get involved. I just want to say, you asked me about this one quote.
Can a country whose president says something like that, which is the tip of the iceberg as you just said, ultimately be the guarantor of our security?
Well, I believe that nothing changes the fact that we work together in a security alliance, in NATO, but we are facing fundamental challenges within this NATO, which I would consider more relevant in this context. And that is the fact that the United States of America, in the current administration, has developed a security strategy in which they are basically declaring war on multilateralism and all multilateral institutions, and thus also on the European Union, at least on the institutions of the European Union, not the member states, but their institutions. And you can see it now, for example, in the support during the election campaign, when the Vice President of the United States of America appears, that it is clearly being worked on not to weaken the nation-states, but to weaken the European institutions. And there we have a major difference of interest, and foreign policy is always the representation of one's own interests, and Europe has an opposing interest there, and we have never had that with the United States of America in history. The United States of America always followed the founding of the European Union with benevolence, even supportively, because they said there will only be peace in Europe if there is a togetherness of the European states and the great powers in Europe do not act against each other again. And that is a new situation we have to deal with. Nevertheless, we are in a common defense alliance, and this alliance applies, and I would do everything from our European side to preserve and strengthen it.
So also sometimes say yes, yes, not yes, yes, yes, to strengthen it and make it clear that we believe it is in our interest, and even believe, I believe that at least now as a private person and I believed it earlier as Chancellor, that it is ultimately also in the American interest, because we face problems that certainly cannot be solved by a single country in the world alone.
Can one, looking at that, say, Donald Trump, if you can't do much with Europe, turn to us in Germany, turn to us in France, turn to us in Italy. Now, I'm being careful, but I'm formulating... I know we don't want to go directly to the current... we already know what you have in mind.
No, I... I withdraw the question and I'll ask it differently. Is it being defended jointly enough, or in this transactional world, where the deal has to come somehow, does one still not believe that it is, or one believes anyway that it will change and then one also goes this way a bit more carelessly?
I hope not. And I would also not advise it, from my experience, because it brings nothing. Today one is perhaps a bit better regarded, tomorrow the other is better regarded. We have all been in that situation before, also with earlier American presidents, if you think of the Iraq War, when in America no French fries were eaten anymore, or at least not called that anymore. So, that's all not new. And if one then believes, I can now... I can tell a personal mistake, which in retrospect was even a bit embarrassing for me, when Chancellor Schröder was so against the Iraq War together with President Chirac and President Putin, but others in Europe were for it. I was in the opposition then, and I wrote articles in the Washington Post during my visit and distanced myself, and it came out big with President Bush that not all Germans think like Schröder. And when I see that in retrospect, I find it rather embarrassing. I also write that in my memoirs. You don't do that, and that doesn't help you either, because tomorrow it's your turn.
You just said, not only those who have the weapons decide what is, but also those who have the economic power. Unfortunately, it doesn't look so good for us right now either. Is Germany... it always goes up and down. There is always a cycle. There was also structural change in the past. Are we at a point where we might really change leagues, downwards?
Well, let me put it this way, the question of how economically strong the European Union is, and it's not just about Germany, but Germany is of course the largest economy in the European Union, has actually played a role since at least this century. The heads of state and government decided in 2000, back then still Gerhard Schröder, the Lisbon Strategy: we want to become the strongest knowledge-based continent in the world. And then it followed, we want to spend, for example, 3% of our gross domestic product on research. We did it in Germany, but many others didn't, and we are not the strongest knowledge-based continent. The United States are ahead of us, China is ahead of us, and now Draghi has presented a competitiveness report again. All correct, and we have to get better there. But I don't want to sing the dirge now. I believe we still have a lot in hand, but if you look at it, we are working with people who have dealt a lot with digitalization. Look at what all comes from America. We can, regarding chips, regarding internet knowledge or topics, regarding artificial intelligence now, we have to become faster and better and also have our own European offers. That is completely clear.
I would like to look at the other major conflict, and to say very briefly, Germany is not a showpiece example there either. If you ask me now, what didn't go as well as you had imagined, digitalization. I hope that the current Digital Minister really has more success in cooperation with the federal states and municipalities, but digitalization is going slowly for us, perhaps because we had such a good administration, because we are not so adept, but that is really a difficult issue with Germany. So, one has to say that. And I would like to look at the other major foreign policy conflict right on our doorstep, namely the war in Ukraine. It's almost 5 years since this war began. Many had thought it was basically impossible that Ukraine could endure it, especially now for a good year without real support from the USA. For example, a huge strength of the European Union. Without the European Union, that would not have been possible.
Is Putin weaker than people thought, than perhaps you also thought in the past, when you were very cautious with him?
Well, I would say, underestimating Putin would be a mistake even now, and not trusting ourselves would be just as much of a mistake. And what is our goal in this conflict? In this conflict, the goal, in my opinion, is that there is a sovereign Ukraine at the end of this conflict that can make its decisions freely. And I personally find it absolutely right, what has been done in terms of military support. I also find it right that we do much more to develop a deterrent effect beyond the support for Ukraine. What I regret is that Europe is not using its diplomatic potential sufficiently, in my view. In my last European Council in 2021, I pointed out that I had met President Biden with President Putin in Geneva a few days before, and then I suggested that we Europeans should also find a format to meet with President Putin. And that failed back then because people said, oh no, with Russia policy, we don't have a common position. And I think one must work on it until one gets a common position. But diplomacy was always the other side of the coin, even in the Cold War. Military deterrence plus diplomatic activities. And I find that important.
That means, you would wish that Europe also while the war is going on tries to speak again, for example, with the Kremlin, or also to both sides?
I'll leave it at this general statement, and all those who bear responsibility today are then responsible for doing what is necessary. I'm just saying that I don't find it sufficient if President Trump maintains contact with Russia, but we are also Europeans, and with our experience, with our possibilities, which are strong, I believe, we can find ways, and how exactly they look, I will not comment on that now.
Last week, the Russian President brought Schröder into the conversation as a mediator. The result was clear, right? Then there were also people who came up with the idea that they could perhaps do something like that. Your office immediately said there are no inquiries whatsoever. Are you out for something like that, or if the conditions were right, would it be, I'm being very, very careful, theoretically conceivable?
I'll start by saying, I have answered as you have already correctly quoted, and secondly, I want to answer that fundamentally. Let me put myself in the situation. Let's go back to the year 2014. Back then, Crimea had been annexed, Russia's military actions in the Donbas began, and then we conducted these Minsk negotiations. President Hollande and I. We could only conduct them with Putin, with President Putin, because we had political power, because we were heads of government. And the idea that one could somehow go to an acting head of government, as the Russian President is, and say, yes, and you need the power, and I personally would not have come up with the idea of asking a mediator to go to Minsk for me and talk to Putin like that. And I ask you to put yourself in that situation. These are politicians acting today, and I wouldn't have come up with that.
That can be understood. One has to take that into one's own hands. Now we've looked abroad a lot, and I want to look very closely at domestic politics again. On September 6th, a new state parliament will be elected in Saxony-Anhalt. How do you view this election?
Of course, I also follow the polls, but we must be careful now not to anticipate results that haven't happened yet, but everyone who doesn't want, and I naturally belong to that, the AfD to become strong, must do something against it. So it's time to talk about it and, above all, what I find very important, not always to define oneself indirectly through the AfD, but perhaps to say louder and clearer and more clearly what the other parties want, what they have planned for Saxony-Anhalt, what is actually our plan for this country, what can we offer people. And I think you saw very nicely in the election in the Netherlands, there was a lead candidate who told the story of the Netherlands, how he envisions his country. And then Wilders did much worse than people thought. And democracy is not a self-runner at all times, and that's why I will advocate for it as I can. And that is now also an opportunity to say, if you love your country, then tell your story, how you see it, and that must above all be done by the candidates of the parties.
You are occasionally criticized for this 'we have the consensus, we must be reasonable' approach. The question is, does that still work? Does this appeal still help, or do you sometimes despair of it yourself?
Well, I mean, at its core, it's about whether you want to make compromises and with whom you make compromises. And I believe that compromise is the essence of democracy. If everyone wants to participate, it is completely clear that no two people get up and have the same plan for a day. So every family life begins with a compromise, or everyone goes their own way. And it's no different in politics. If we want to achieve something together, we must be reasonable. Yes, and that is also something where compromise is tempted to be lazy or not good, and you just have another compromise again. Yes, the probability that when several people sit together, one gets 100% and the others get nothing is very low. And the second thing is, now we have to be reasonable again, we're not even allowed to let our mood speak. Our democracy is based on the fact that facts are facts and moods are moods. Moods are permissible. But moods cannot replace facts, and if we start with that, then we are on the wrong track. And the third thing is, if I'm just at it, if we still have time, well, it looks bad, if... just briefly, that the AfD tries to define who the people are. And I can only ask everyone in this hall and everyone watching, every German citizen is the people. And there is no one who is allowed to divide, you are the people and you are the elite. I am the people and you are all the people and we are together the people. And those are the things: compromise, facts, and every German citizen has the same rights and duties and belongs to the German people. Those are the important things.
How do you explain that the AfD, but also the Left, are gaining so much support among young people right now? Or I'll add another point. Is too much politics being made for old people in Germany, so that one says they're not doing it for us?
No, well, I don't know, the Left wanted to run with the 'Silver Locks' action and thought that with three older gentlemen who get three direct mandates, that the Left is now the party that is only voted for by young people, you can't say that, but also by young people. A bit of it is certainly in the appearance in today's media. And a bit of it is also the role of media usage, one really has to look at that, and parties like the CDU and SPD probably have to get better at being perceived on Instagram and other media. And that's a completely different topic. Is too much politics being done for the elderly and is the youth being shortchanged? I will probably be able to speak about that right after. That is a topic of generational justice, that is very, very important. But the AfD voters are not all young, but among the young, the perception of politics has completely changed. We haven't even fully realized that. How many still read newspapers? How many still watch public broadcasting television? It's deplorable. Thank goodness you have the media library, then you can watch it when you want. Yes, we are all still calibrated somehow to when the news comes, but a young person today wants to be informed permanently, and we probably have to adjust to that even better.
If you still look in this area, now independent of the, let's say, political fringes. Now reforms are being made. There must also be the question over it, how do I motivate a young person to look forward to life in Germany? We have social systems that are becoming more expensive, we have a pension that is uncertain. Then there might be conscription at some point. Is this aspect being considered too little? What is, so to speak, the perspective for the younger generation in Germany?
Well, I mean, you don't make a pension reform for the pensioners, right? You mustn't think like that. That would be wrong. You also make a pension reform so that the younger generation then still has a chance to have security in old age. It's not being made for today's pensioners, it doesn't really affect them, but for the young people. Climate policy is done so that you don't leave the young people with something where they can't stand it in the summer in our cities. You spoke of conscription, one must say, many older people experienced actual conscription. But one must of course speak with the young generation about this change and also campaign, and formats where one specifically reaches out to young people are certainly very, very important.
Last question, I don't have a clock here, so I'll just do it now. One topic that always occupies young people is climate protection. You also wrote in your book that you regret that things where one has to take precautions are then not worked on quite as strongly in politics. Now a lot has happened in the area of climate protection, but a lot is being rolled back right now. We see it with the topic of the combustion engine ban. We see that oil heaters are allowed to be installed again, and what was the argument against it, we have the CO2 price, then you can do it, but it will just get more expensive. That is now at least being suspended in Germany for the coming year. Is that a mistake?
Well, I also write in my memoirs that, measured by what we know, we did too little, and that I also failed, one must say, to always find sufficient majorities. And I find it very important now that the decisions we made, as far as possible, we won't criticize details now, but as far as possible, are also adhered to. I still remember when the catalytic converter was introduced, there was also screaming that it wouldn't work and it wouldn't be possible, also with every new emission standard for combustion engines. And when the economy knows it has to manage it, then it manages it, and often we were at the forefront with that. And it's of course not so nice when we then see that more electric cars might be driving in China than here. That means, we should keep at it. This topic is not out of the world. On the contrary, we are approaching the tipping points rather than it becoming less relevant. And despite all other things, climate protection must remain higher on the agenda.
Even when the economy is really going downhill right now. You can't weigh them against each other.
I think you can't weigh them against each other, generally you can't play them off against each other. I mean, it is of course the point, I must also open up options here. I must always talk about the goal. And if I talk to people about the goal of my measure and perhaps sometimes less about the details, but about the goal, then I can perhaps also gain more understanding. But I know how difficult that is. So, I don't want to speak from a high horse here.
Frau Bundeskanzlerin, I say a very warm thank you and say here in the room, please stay seated. It continues right away with the colleagues from 630. A very warm thank you that you were with us. Thank you, Angela Merkel.
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Angela Merkel. And thank you also, Markus Preis. You heard it. Angela Merkel stays with us, because the colleagues from the WDR News Podcast 630 asked their community for questions for Mrs. Merkel. There were plenty, and we...
We are looking forward to their answers. And before that, while we briefly rearrange the stage, a quick detour to Brussels. There, we asked young Members of the European Parliament from various factions for their view on Europe in crisis mode. How would you decide? What is your view on climate protection and migration policy, on security issues, and on the relationship with the USA? Here are their answers.
Where is Europe heading? What role does the EU still play globally? The principle of democracy is under attack. Young EU politicians give answers to crucial questions.
Climate or economy first? The climate first. Our dependence on fossil fuels is an economic, ecological, and social catastrophe.
Without a reasonable climate, there is no reasonable economy. And just as much, we naturally need economic growth for the climate. The climate first. Without a livable planet, there will be no economy. Without climate, the economy collapses.
There is no clear answer possible, because both must go together.
The European project must readjust. Does the unanimity principle still work, or should majorities decide?
The unanimity principle blocks us on very many points. Therefore, let majorities decide, but not everywhere.
Democracy works with majorities, for better or for worse. I want majorities.
I say, dare more democracy, majority decisions, because we must be capable of acting.
The majority principle should apply to decisions. Make decisions on the basis of majorities.
Majority principle. We must act more decisively in foreign policy and build a stronger union.
Answers from the young politicians: make borders tighter or allow refugees access?
Certainly a humane refugee policy, but one that is also subject to rules.
Refugees should continue to have access. One of the solutions in migration policy is to create more legal escape routes.
You need both. If we pursue a more generous policy on migration and care for people, then we must also ensure that we have the corresponding capacities.
Clearly, we must manage migration, and we need good legal migration, and then there is also more room for refugees.
The American president repeatedly challenges the EU. Stay on America's side or emancipate yourself from the USA?
The USA are very important partners, but we must become more independent of them. We cannot be as dependent on the USA as we are now.
Also, Trump won't be there forever, and one shouldn't forget one's allies.
Be proud. Culturally, we rely heavily on the USA, but we should be proud of our European culture. I would say, emancipate yourself from the USA to stay on the American side, because one thing is clear: the Americans don't want weak allies anymore.
Crises and wars, a test for all of Europe. Continue to support Ukraine militarily or push for peace in other ways?
We must do everything we can to support Ukraine. This also means continuing military support.
The support also has a direct impact on peace negotiations. If we have learned one thing in the last few years, it is that Putin only negotiates when we come from a position of strength. Therefore, the best path to peace is to continue and support Ukraine much more strongly.
Definitely continue to support Ukraine militarily. The security and victory of Ukraine decide the future of Europe. Definitely continue to support Ukraine militarily until the Russians lay down their weapons and go back to their country.
Existential questions that shake the foundation of Europe. That is also why cohesion in the EU must be strengthened.
So, back to Angela Merkel, who will now face questions from the young listeners of the WDR News Podcast 630. The hosts Karo Bredendik and Florian Gregorzig will talk to her about topics that particularly concern their target group, the under-30s. In a place where young people like to exchange ideas, in a shared apartment kitchen.
Yes, a warm welcome, Ms. Merkel, to our 630 podcast shared apartment kitchen, you could say. It's a place that probably exists thousands of times in Germany, where young people sit, exchange ideas about what's going on, but probably also talk a lot about the future, about what they hope for, what they might be afraid of. Is that something you also know from the past?
Well, not directly. As a student, I lived in a student dormitory, but of course, you were also with people a lot. That was in the GDR. There was a TV room where you could gather, but you could only watch East German television. If you wanted to watch West German TV, you had to go home. And then, when I started as a young physicist, I had an apartment in the second courtyard in Mariraße here in Berlin. We lived there among ourselves, medical students. I had just come with my then-husband from our studies in Leipzig, and we often met in such a kitchen atmosphere and talked about whether one should work well for the GDR or whether it was better not to work well, whether one was strengthening the system or whether it was better to be lazy. And with the medical students, we said, no, no, you have to work well, because we all want to be healthy. With the physicists, it wasn't so clear.
If you now put yourself back in the shoes of the early or mid-20-year-old Angela Merkel, how did you look at the topic of the future back then?
Well, actually, then we are now already, then I can continue the thread of conversation I just told you. I thought a lot about it. I lived in a dictatorship, and it didn't look so rosy. Many of my friends then went to the West. I stayed. And it wasn't just the question of whether you should work well, but it was the question... and then I thought a lot about it and thought, you only have one life, and if you are not diligent now, if you don't try to push your limits and achieve what you can, then you become sluggish, and then you might become cynical or depressed, and then you have actually harmed yourself above all. And that's why I can imagine that young people today have a lot of problems. On the other hand, they have a whole life ahead of them, and that is of course also great, because I mean, when I sometimes see today, I didn't have the freedom to travel back then, one can only say, grandma tells stories of the war. That's how I feel now, of course, but still, I would always encourage young people to seize the opportunities and, of course, not to make a fuss, but simply to say, what can I change? Because in the end, you have to account to your children, to yourself, what have you changed in your life? And if you then say, well, the circumstances were so bad, unfortunately I couldn't, I don't think you get very far with that.
You just hinted at it, life in the GDR was very different from the life of young people today, or at least there were different problems, a lack of freedom that we don't know today.
Problem, yes, but I mean, constantly counting your money to see if you can still afford it, that's probably the same for young people today. How do I plan, when I think about rent costs?
Yes, rent costs, that's a topic I found very interesting in your book, because the housing shortage, and how do I find a decent apartment, many people know that today too. And you, I almost want to say, solved it a bit cheekily as a young woman. You simply occupied an uninhabited apartment and put a new lock on it. Would you like to tell us how that was? I think today, private owners wouldn't allow that so easily.
That was a socialist communal housing administration, and they were glad if they got rent from anyone and didn't care. And that's why I can't recommend it as a concept now. I wanted to... we just found that we didn't live in a proper rule of law, but in a rule of law, I can't call for squatting houses. You have to solve things differently.
Did the furniture look something like this? The kitchen?
Yes, well, I... that was... I got a lot from the bulk waste, because people also threw away a lot. And it was always like that in the GDR, we had, for example, Spillakart tables in the student dormitory. I don't know if you know what that is. It's a plastic.
Scrapable stuff. And it was always the highest wood. And now, that could also be a table from your grandmother or great-grandmother. In any case, real wood, Vietnamese bast mats as carpets, self-built shelves. But you have to know, in the GDR there wasn't a single board for sale. It was a huge drama to get a piece of wood at all. But that's roughly how it was. Yes, then the bulk waste was a good option.
Yes, some interesting things were on the way.
At the tables nowadays, young people talk a lot about crises and discuss a lot. And our listener, for example, Mara from Hamburg or Anna from Buchholz an der Nordheide, they wrote to us and would like to know from you, how do you deal with feelings of world-weariness? So, for example, if you listen to our 630 news podcast in the morning and we only have bad news to report again.
