Talk:German Democratic Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WP Former Countries - Things to do:


Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Germany To-do:

Contents

[edit] Dance Dance Revolution

Isn't 'Dance Dance Recolution' the much more recognized/known meaning for the acronym 'DDR'? I asked a few people (selection/volume bias, I know, but...), and the German Democratic Republic is NOT what they say! --69.138.61.168 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head of State in 89/early 90

I'm writing because there seems to be confusion about who the East German head of state actually was, between December 89, and March 90 - during the hubris of the political transition after the fall of the wall. By head of state, I mean what one would think of as 'President', or in this case Chairman of the Council of State. I have read in several books that Gregor Gysi was such, as head of the Central Committee of the SED/PDS - which meant that he was the successor of Krenz, and Honecker, but Wiki lists Manfred Gerlach, instead. Which is right??
(RM21 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] SOvereignty

The article states that the DDR/GDR became sovereign in 1955. I have two main questions about this. On whose definition was the DDR a sovereign state at this time?? And when did it become so?? Soviet occupation troops had withdrawn in 1949 (apart from the 'Allied' Russian garrison in East Berlin, and East Germany as a whole, which would remain until 1994), and a civilian government was instituted.

But as far as international recognition goes - one of the best factors in determining the sovereignty of a state - this did not materialise until 1973, after the signing of the General Traffic Treaty in June 72, and the Basic Treaty between the Federal Republic and Democratic Republic in December 72. Most Western (European, and United States, Australia etc.) states established diplomatic relations in 1973 (as well as both German states being granted United Nations membership); the states that had done so before that time were mainly Soviet-satellite states, and other communist regimes.

Can anyone point to any other factors which would have meant the DDR/GDR realising its sovereignty in 1955?? Even if Moscow 'granted' the DDR sovereignty then, this could not have been anything other than token sovereignty from Moscow, not sovereignty in the conventional sense of the word. Nor would it have had any connection with the limited, qualified sovereignty granted to West Germany at that time. (RM21 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Communist vs totalitarian

User:Burschenschafter changed the introdoctury sentence from calling the GDR a communist state to calling it a totalitarian state. I reverted this for the following reason: Of course, the GDR was in a way totalitarian. But this is too NPOV to be written in the very first sentence. Linking to comunist state is clearly the better idea, as most readers will have a clear conception about what communist states were like, and so know. If not, the linked articla comunist state nicely and very clear puts it: "In the West, a communist state [...] also called [...] Marxist-Leninist dictatorship". So, "communist" used in this sense, is a specific' kind of totalitarian and hence more precise. Burschenschafter, if you feel that the GDR is even in comparison to other communist states especially totalitarian, a good place to write (and explain) this view would be in the section about the Stasi, which clearly could be made a bit longer. And for the "puppet-led by the Soviet Union": That's not quite true: In the beginning, it was like this, granted. In the end, it was strangely reversed: You certainly remember, how Honecker complained about the laxness of the Gorbatchev regime and decided to keep thing tight in Germany and not to follow Perestroyka. Maybe, we should detail this relation between GDR and SU in the history section. (So, Burschenschafter, don't get me wrong: The introductory sentence is sensitive. Better spell out such things at length further below.) Simon A. 14:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Taking pictures in old East Germany

Sorry, I got lost. Did you say you took a picture of a Soviet soldier? Or an American soldier? I have heard of people being detained for doing such things, though. - Victor (Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:17:28 UTC)

It was the bridge which was the issue, being a potential target of sabotage. It seems Merlin was treated rather lightly. Fred Bauder 23:03, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

I was an American exchange student in West Berlin in 1963-64. I was briefly detained in the police headquarters in Friedrichstrasse when I naively took a photograph of a soldier in front of a railroad bridge. My film was confiscated and there were no further consequences as far as I know. I wonder if anyone knows of Americans who were held in East Germany for extended periods, or where I could find information about this subject. Excuse if this is not an appropriate wikipedia question. Thanks, Merlin

Interesting. Over here in the USA they don't teach that Nazi functionaries got jobs in West Germany, and didn't in East Germany. Can someone elaborate? --Branden

It's true. Both the West and the Communists wanted to 'denazify' Germany, but the Communists were strongly intent on eliminating everyone associated with Nazism, while the West was more interested in 'rehabilitation'. The West soon decided that Communism was a bigger threat than a revival of Nazism; their main interest became getting West Germany powerful enough to withstand Communism, which meant giving the Nazis back their jobs. In Nazi Germany bureaucrats, businesspeople, academics, etc., had to support the Nazis if they were to get anywhere; thus many of the educated people still in Germany after the war had Nazi associations. Life in West Germany was much easier for ex-Nazis than it was in East Germany -- SJK.
Both in West and in East Germany Nazis were hunted. If someone was an important Nazi he was jailed both in West and East Germany. Life for Nazis wasn't easy at all. 82.82.125.13 22:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect name of Middle Germany

The term "East Germany" is highly offensive and misleading. It is actually not East Germany, but Middle Germany, which was the term used in West Germany. East Germany is the name of Silesia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg, East- and West Prussia etc. Besides, "East Germany" was not the official name of the GDR. I propose we move this article to "German Democratic Republic", the official name of that state. Nico 02:09, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I propose we keep it exactly where it is. Irredentism is no reason to move it. Morwen 07:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
The DDR has always been called "East Germany" in English. Quit with the silliness, Nico. john 19:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, "Middle Germany" was the name used in West Germany during the cold war. You are correct that DDR was nicknamed East Germany in English, but it was never the name of the state, and most articles here dealing with states use their official name or their official short name, like France, Spain, Germany. The short name of the German Democratic Republic was DDR, not East Germany. Nico 19:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Parden me? You're kidding with this middle germany thing? I've never personally heard someone refer to the DDR as middle germany. The conservatives used to call it "east zone", but "middle germany" was never accepted naming, not if you got over third reich. TRauMa 05:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the term Middle Germany ceased to be used much after the beginning of the Ostpolitik and the recognition of the Oder-Neisse-Line as the border to Poland. Before this, the term Middle Germany was used to signify the claim to the former area of the German "Reich". Madcynic 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In this context, it is especially important to notice that at since quite a while (since the 80s) the use of the term "middle Germany" is politically charged to a significant amount: While, or rather: because, the majority accepted the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line, the far right opposed to it used the term explicitely to provoke those in favour of the term. Today, somebody with politically centered views will consider you as a probable neo-nazi if you use the term, or at least as an "Ewiggestriger" (eternally-living-in-the-past, i.e. unwilling to learn from history). Actuelly I noticed that the term has become sufficeintly taboo to be now reintroduced into the German meaning with the harmless meaning of middle Germany in the sense of neither north nor south. Simon A. 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ostmark. Morwen 21:06, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
And I cite the article: "Officially it was known as the Mark der DDR". Nico 01:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ostmark is an unusual name for Austria 89.57.48.160 13:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See Historical Eastern Germany article for a discussion on this:

Until 1990 German irredentists, mainly from families expelled from this territory, but also to many other Germans, the terms "eastern Germany" and "east Germany" referred to the area east of Berlin which had been settled by German-speaking communities before World War II including those east of the Oder-Neisse rivers. The area from Berlin to the Elbe river, or possibly slightly further west, was called "middle Germany" (Mitteldeutschland). This could cause confusion when translated into English because, in English usage between 1949 and 1990, "East Germany" referred exclusively the area of Germany known as the GDR. Philip Baird Shearer

[edit] Totalitarian state

User:Wik is claiming that the DDR was not a totalitarian state. However, he insists on calling Nazi Germany totalitarian and has made it clear that he think it is acceptable to refer to a totalitarian state as "totalitarian". While his opinons certainly were "politically correct" in the stalinist regime that killed million of people, and maybe were shared by the few Germans, Hungarians and other East Europeans who collaborated with the occupation force until the liberation in 1990, I find them unacceptable here at Wikipedia. Nico 17:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is the edit war here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with characterizing Nazi Germany as a totalitarian state, but equivalence is not automatic. Please let Wik speak for himself... I think perhaps some language that East Germany is considered by sympathizers to have been a socialist state might serve. Fred Bauder 22:26, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have asked Wik to justify his edits a long time ago. I do not think there is anything wrong with characterizing DDR as totalitarian, and I think we should be consistent. Anyway, Wik is welcome to show some evidence that DDR was a democracy. Nico 22:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are things in between democracies and totalitarian states, you know. (Note I am not saying it was either, or both, or neither.) Morwen 22:47, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
None of those things in between shoot anyone who tries to escape. Fred Bauder 17:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
When did East Germany stop being totalitarian? I ask this because I presume you wouldn't contend it was a totalitarian state after the CDU won the elections. But they couldn't have won the elections if it was a totalitarian state for quite some time before... Morwen 17:29, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
I do not understand your question. Middle Germany (DDR) stopped being totalitarian when it was liberated and annexed by Germany in 1990, they started holding elections etc. Why couldn't CDU win the elections after the territory was liberated? Do you presume that the Middle Germans should vote on their oppressors when they were free again?
Anyway, as a British, why do you defend this totalitarian regime in another country? I guess most British people would be offended if I wished that Great Britain had a totalitarian regime. Nico 19:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The GDR (DDR) was a socialist democracy. --> Myths over the GDR. 217.184.99.75 16:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


But I thought they started having elections _before_ it was annexed by West Germany? Was Lothar de Maizière the head of a totalitarian state? I find your last remarks very unfortunate. Morwen 19:21, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

First off, using the term Middle Germany for the territory of the former GDR is, IMHO, way out of line, because it assumes that there are German territories east of it - which there aren't anymore and anyone in their right mind would not go ahead and claim that there are any!!! It is true that Germany until the end of WW II had territories east of the later Soviet zone, then GDR, but they were given back to Poland, as they have been Polish territory that had been annexed by Germany, Austria and Russia over the centuries (see Partitioned_Poland_(1795-1914)). Western Poland was again made a part of Germany by Hitler at the beginning of WW II (see History_of_Poland_(1939-1945)), and these part where the ones east of the territory of the former GDR.

This is awful and completely ridiculous. East Prussia "back to Poland"? Silesia, which had been German for almost 700 years? According to international law, the East German territories belongs to Germany. Million of German people claims those territories as they are rightfully German. Nico 17:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Secondly, there have been elections in the GDR, but they were seen by the West as being rigged, as peole were forced to take part in them and the ruling Socialist Party usually gained a majority in the 90% range in each and everyone of them. --Kathrynn 10:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, in the first place, the eastern German territories were given to Poland as compensation for the Soviet Union taking over what had been Eastern Poland, and had very little to do with any perceived Polish right to them (surely there were very few Poles in German east pomerania or Lower Silesia). And these territories were under German political control continuously for hundreds of years before 1945. But, this is not the point, which is that the idea that East Germany should be called "Middle Germany" is stuff and nonsense. As to totalitarianism, I personally oppose all use of the word totalitarianism as an objective descriptor, as it is POV, because many people don't accept the term as descriptive of anything. If were were to use the term, Morwen certainly has a good point that the DDR was certainly not autocratic for its entire existence, since it had free elections in 1990 that resulted in a CDU victory, and reunification only came after that. So it would be incorrect to say that East Germany was a totalitarian state, because, for at least the last year of its existence, it was not a totalitarian state by any standard. Preceeding was by User:John Kenney but unsigned Fred Bauder 16:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not rule out use of words like "totalitarianism", it only requires that it be balanced by other views of the situation, like for example, "socialist". That elections were held as the puppet regime neared collapse should certainly be included in the article, but in an appropriate way. Fred Bauder 16:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV ought to rule out the article saying "East Germany was totalitarian," as though this is an unproblematic term. I think everyone can agree that in some sense, East Germany was a "Socialist" state. The same is absolutely not true of totalitarianism (even among those who accept that there is such a thing). The elections were held after East Germany ceased to be a Soviet puppet, BTW. john 17:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is the language I would have:

East Germany, formally the German Democratic Republic (GDR), German Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), was a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist government imposed by fiat on the Soviet Zone of occupied Germany by the Soviet Union which, together with the democratic state of West Germany, existed from 1949 to 1990 in Germany. The GDR was proclaimed in the Soviet sector of Berlin on October 7, 1949. It was declared fully sovereign in 1954, but Soviet troops remained on grounds of the four-power Potsdam agreement. East Germany was a member of the Warsaw Pact.

Perhaps this would be acceptable:

East Germany, formally the German Democratic Republic (GDR), German Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), was a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist government imposed by fiat on the Soviet Zone of occupied Germany by the Soviet Union which, together with the democratic state of West Germany, existed from 1949 to 1990 in Germany. Supporters of Marxism-Leninism characterize East Germany as a socialist state and emphasise popular support among the German people for the regime. The GDR was proclaimed in the Soviet sector of Berlin on October 7, 1949. It was declared fully sovereign in 1954, but Soviet troops remained on grounds of the four-power Potsdam agreement. East Germany was a member of the Warsaw Pact. Fred Bauder 17:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is far too much pro-NATO, anti-WP, to be long-term viable.
--Ruhrjung 17:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not just leave 'totalitarian' out of this. Marxist-Leninist government would seem to be a much better description. DJ Clayworth 17:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"organized in Markts" in the history section is a typo; (Markt means market), it should be "organized in Marks". Admins please correct this! 82.83.132.165 12:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DD isn't "deprecated", it's obsolete. (I can't fix the article because it's protected.) --Zundark 10:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move page

Why is this article not at German Democratic Republic? — Jor (Talk) 17:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the original choice was arbitrary. Move it if you wish. Fred Bauder 18:22, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
"Wik" disagrees (of course). I wish users like Wik would give others a chance to edit before they reverted… — Jor (Talk) 18:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
FWIW, the article obviously belongs at GDR:
1.4 Use common names of persons and things
Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things
East Germany can have more meanings, but GDR always refers to the Soviet satellite state. — Jor (Talk) 18:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And of course there is no need for any disambiguation note if the page is at the proper location. Alas "Wik" moved it back before I could perform an edit or use the talk page to explain why. — Jor (Talk) 18:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The best argument for keeping it as East Germany is that West Germany is the logical counterpart.
--Ruhrjung 19:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I agree wholeheartedly with Jor. East and West Germany were informal names used in everyday English, but carefully avoided by formal writers. While I do not object to the terms West and East Germany being used, but Wikipedia should be using the correct names in article titles. West Germany is indeed the logical counterpart to East Germany, that doesn't logically make it correct.--Timdownie 02:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Wik" would like to explain why the disambiguation note

This article is about the Soviet satelite state. See Eastern Germany for lands in eastern Europe which at one point in time formed a part of a German nation

is "POV nonsense" according to him? I will not be dragged in his revert war games. — Jor (Talk) 18:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is POV nonsense. "East Germany" has a very clear meaning in English; there is no need for disambiguation. john 18:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact Wik gets into revert wars with other contributers over the term suggests that the name does have multiple meanings. — Jor (Talk) 18:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Satellite state" is POV. And the disambiguation is not needed at all, because "East Germany" in English has no other meaning. --Wik 18:49, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Satellite state just means under Soviet control which anyone of good faith would admit. While "eastern Germany" would probably not be used by an American, even one of German extraction, it might be used by a German using English. As a universal language, such use is contemplated. The use of "eastern Germany" in such a way is mainly of historical interest. Fred Bauder 01:57, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

User:Jor:

If this becomes a revert war, I'll have to revert to the last stable version of the page (12:30, 28 Mar 2004). On pages that attract recurring edit wars, new users often enter the fold. They tend to mean well, but they often bring up concerns that have already been resolved and/or addressed. From my recollection I believe that many of your concerns have already been discussed here on Talk:East Germany. You may want to read through this archive and get up to date on the page history so as to avoid an edit war. 172 19:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As stated I have no interests in Wik's revert war games. — Jor (Talk) 19:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I doubt that User:Wik is playing games. He is a serious user and among the handful of most active editors on WP. To him this was probably an issue of removing non-neutral language. 172 00:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name of country

The name of the nation state was German Democratic Republic, not "East Germany". Since when are colloquial names listed first? Please check other nations: The Netherlands does not start with "Holland, also known as the Netherlands", United States does not start with "America, or more formally the United States of America" etc.. So why should the GDR? — Jor (Talk) 19:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are counterexamples, though. Egypt has 'Egypt'. Does the WikiProject template specifiy this? By the way, your examples there are both easily explained away as (a) holland is incorrect, even informally, and (b) 'America' is entirely contained within 'United States of America'. What we would really need to draw a precedent from is a country whose official name does not contain all the words from the the frequent, but correct name - East Timor and Greece would support your argument better. Morwen 19:17, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
As for Egypt, the nation's official English name is apparently "Arabic Republic of Egypt", which I feel is how the article should begin. However in light of the strong opposition to the change here I hesitate to edit there. Where is the project discussed? — Jor (Talk) 20:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. Morwen 20:41, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. — Jor (Talk) 21:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It might be important to differentiate between state and nation. Few Germans would agree that East- and West-Germany made two nations, however two countries (a.k.a. two independent states), although some held East Germany to be less legitime than West Germany.

One argument for starting both articles on West- and East-Germany with these less formal names is that they emphasize the split of Germany in two halves re-united in 1990, which is and was an important aspect for many Germans, and also symbolically important for some non-Germans.
--Ruhrjung 20:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with these arguments in part, however by insisting on using the names West Germany vs East Germany the idea that these were not seperate states but rather two parts of one country is propagated — which undermines the legimity of both the pre-unification FRG and the GDR. (My use of "nation" in the first comment of this thread should probably be replaced with "country" — I am not 100% familiar with the exact meaning of the different terms). — Jor (Talk) 20:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The nation was called the German Nation. ;-) --Ruhrjung 20:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, West Germany should most certainly not be merged with Germany!
West Germany is as historically relevant as the Holy Roman Empire, the Hanseatic League, Deutscher Bund, Imperial Germany, the Weimar Republic, and the Third Reich!
— All of course according to my sincerest, but personal, opinion.
--Ruhrjung 20:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed it has historical reference, but the nation continued directly under the same name with the same government, so it should be treated as a historical entity — something like Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1990, with "West Germany" redirecting to it and a note in the history of the FRG page where this period can be found. — Jor (Talk) 21:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So, we have an obvious conflict. How should that be solved?
(Meanwhile, you might want to read the articles on nation, state and country, please. ...Please!)
--Ruhrjung 21:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Conflict? Sorry, I fail to see how discussing the FRG from 1945 to 1990 in its own article clashes with discussing the FRG as a whole. — Jor (Talk) 21:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Conflict, yes, it seems so to me. Two or three, actually:
  1. You want the East-Germany—West-Germany dichotomy to be less prominent by naming the articles Democratic Republic of Germany and Federal Republic of Germany, or something in that direction. I prefer status quo.
  2. You think that plenty of country articles should have their formal long names (don't remember the exact English terminology right now, but the long form typically stated in CIA factbook. I think it's better to use the short forms most commonly known and used.
  3. You think that "Germany formally under foreign occupation" and "Germany fully sovereign (after October 3rd 1990)" better are treated as similar entities, and hence should not have wikipedia articles of their own, only redirects. I wonder where that will end. Third Reich, Weimar Republic and Imperial Germany could well equally well be incorporated in that article too?
I find it highly unlikely that either you or I should be alone in our opinions, so we have the task in front of us to solve this difference somehow.
Any ideas how that could be done?
--Ruhrjung 21:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jumping back to the left...
  1. You partially misunderstood: I want the states to be discussed at their proper names: West and East Germany must be kept as redirects, and the nicknames must be mentioned on the first line.
  2. Yes, any state should be at its proper name: thus France (to take a neutral name) should be at French Republic, with a redirect from France.
  3. No, Germany from 1945 to present should be discussed at Federal Republic of Germany. However, since it is desired, what you call West Germany and which actually is a page about the FRG from 1945 to 1990—as opposed to the German Democratic Republic—should be at Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1990 or a similarily titled article. Its contents can be what is now in West Germany! — Jor (Talk) 21:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Proper name— by this I mean its official name in English. If no official English name exists I guess the CIA Factbook will work. — Jor (Talk) 21:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, at least that idea is consistent, although I find it otherwise unappealing. However, it would definitely amount to a change in long-established policy, as well as being an exception to the golden rule to 'use common names'. Please discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries and see if you can get a consensus.
Done. — Jor (Talk) 22:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Stasi in this article? It was, after all, one of the most powerful forces in East German societyTDC 21:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a mention of it, in the history section. Maybe making it more prominent would help more people accept the article? Morwen 21:24, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I think I was viewing the wrong revision. TDC 21:49, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Language from the platform of the PDS

In the course of renouncing its totalitarian past as the SED in its platform [1] renounces the crimes and disrgard for democracy and political liberty of its predecessors. May I suggest that if the former rulers of East Germany can do so that those who would today contest an objective description of the totalitarian crimes of the former regime might also. They speak of "unreserved disputation" with those crimes. That is the point of the dispute I have with the article as it now stands. Fred Bauder 22:14, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, what in the current article do you particularly object to? I'm confused. john 22:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the country again

Neither of the two versions of the article being flipped back and forth in this latest edit war adds significant information to the article not contained by the other. (although there is a bit of info about who first settled eastern Germany which varies). I think East Germany and West Germany are best as it is the common practice as you can see with South and North Korea and South and North Vietnam. Fred Bauder 18:28, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

"east germany" is a colloquialism, not the legal name, ergo should be "..., commonly called ...". the legal name is the inherently neutral one, anything else is both (possibly) pov, and unprofessional-looking to users. if it is itself controverted as the pov of the government which chose it, it can be replaced with "the name _____ was set by the [name of law] in [year] ..." in the first usage. this may be appropriate in this article: the ddr was a republik, wasn't democratische, and its citizens weren't uniformly deutsch in ancestry or language or religion.
the information regarding the markt is likely being inserted as part of the pov war, but is accurate and should be retained. Badanedwa 22:59, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
As user 82.83.132.165 stated further above, the term "markt" is a typo, meaning market in German. It should be "mark" or "march" instead. -- Doodee 12:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Its citizens were pretty uniformly deutsch in language, with the exception of the very small Sorbian minority. I'm not sure how you can be "Deutsch" in religion. john 03:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

  • "pretty" but not "uniform". german religion = pre-christian. Badanedwa 03:58, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it should certainly remain at East Germany, and that a disambig at the top is unnecessary, but that the intro should be changed to "The German Democratic Federation (GDF), commonly known as East Germany", exactly like we have on East Timor. Actually I think all country articles should begin with the official English-language long form. We indeed have that at France or Finland or whatever. (I don't think we need original-language forms in the intro, we already have them in the table.) But again, that's for the intro, not the article title. -- Jao 20:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

  • i failed to note the native name in the box, that may obviate it in the intro. Badanedwa 03:58, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
I can't help but wonder why nobody complained about the suggestion here for a week, and then when I decided to go through it, it was reverted in eight minutes. Wik is welcome to explain why the current version is better. -- Jao 13:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Read up on this page, this has been discussed months ago. East Germany is the most common name, that's why it's naturally first. The usual format should be "<common name>, officially <official name>, is...". --Wik 14:09, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
The Republic of Korea (ROK; Korean: Daehan Minguk (Hangul: 대한 민국; Hanja: 大韓民國)) : 大韓民國)), commonly known as South Korea
The Federal Republic of Germany or FRG (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland or BRD), informally known as West Germany
It looks like policy is pretty inconsistent on this. Personally, I think the official name should come first - that's what we do for personal names, where we list the full name, and then the commonly known as name. john 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Never mind my last posting. I thought people were talking about moving the article. 172 17:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I thought this might be an issue to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, so I added it there. Let's see if something comes out of it... (And yeah, I'm with john on this, if you didn't notice.) -- Jao 18:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Did anything come of this? I haven't found any trace of a guideline or policy on this. A sample of countries and wikis suggests no consensus, and we could probably do with one. Rd232 19:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For personal names, we usually list the full name only, we don't say "George Walker Bush, commonly known as George W. Bush", we just list the full name, with the common name evident from the title. I think we should do the same for countries where the common short form is entirely contained in the long form, e.g. "The Republic of X is...", not "The Republic of X, commonly known as X, is...". However, where there are different names like East Germany and German Democratic Republic, the name that is used for the article title should be mentioned first in the text. --Wik 20:56, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I was mostly thinking of peers. For instance, our article at Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh opens
Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, (June 18, 1769 - August 12, 1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh


At any rate, I don't see that it's so important. john 05:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that main titles should be neutral and correct: German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany, rather than misleading colloquilisms, which have the connotation of the two Republics being not entirely sovereign states. Also, the title for the USA should be the United States of America, rather than just the United States, since there are more United States in the worlds than just the 50 ones north from the Rio Grande (e.g. the United States of Mexico).

Yes, please correct the title! The correct title should be German Democratic Republic. East Germany is ambiguous. Nowadays, it refers to the Eastern part of Germany, i.e. the former GDR plus West Berlin (or without West Berlin, as there are still special laws and regulations for that part of Germany officially called "Beitrittsgebiet"="acceding territory"). There is no "former East Germany", AFAIK the cardinal points haven't changed recently. East Germany should be a disambiguation page between
  • Eastern part of Germany,
  • colloquial use = the former state called GDR,
  • the neo-nazi use for parts of Poland and Russia that belonged to Prussia/Germany for some time in history (Historical_Eastern_Germany). (I'm not sure whether the latter has any relevance in English.)--84.188.173.232 20:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elections in the GDR

I just deleted this from the paragraph about the Vokskammer and the block parties: This is in contrast to West Germany, which did not allow people to vote for the parties they wished to, such as the Communist Party.

Fine, you can think about the West-German communist party and its dissolvment what you want. But using this to imply that the Volkskammer elections were democratic, like that anybody could have run as member of parliament in any party, that is really way off. Unfortunatly, I'm a typical Wessi, wth limited knowledge of East Germany, so: Any East Germans around? Could you, please, add some sentences about what the Blockparteien were, how they werked, how independent they were, and how the elections worked? Maybe also a few words about these famous >90% results in favour of the SED? Thanks a lot. Simon A. 09:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

@Simon, >>90% results in favour of the SED?<< As far as I know, the SED had about 20-25% of the seats in the Volkskammer. You mean "99% results" for the "Nationale Front", which was a association of different parties and mass organizations in the GDR. All these parties ofcourse where acting under the constitution, which underlined the "leading role of the SED" and the "eternal friendship to the USSR". ;-) Arne List 16:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Country name (yet again)

By the (inconsistently applied) rules of Wikipedia, I think this entry should clearly be under "German Democratic Republic". Compare, for example, People's Republic of Poland, and proper names generally. (In fact if there are no objections I will move it myself in a week or two.) Rd232 21:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if you do the same to West Germany also. Ruy Lopez 05:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. West Germany describes WG properly as an informal name for the western part of the current German state in the second half of the twentieth century, linking to the main FRG page. (Could do with some editing but anyway.) It's probably better to leave it as it is than to move all relevant FRG historical information to West Germany, despite the implication of historical inevitability; there's a good case that despite the addition of 16m people the FRG is still practically the same state as before 1989 (certainly it is legally). In fact although the case is clearly weaker, it might be an idea to move the current East Germany to German Democratic Republic and have a similar page at East Germany specifically about the informal name and its usage. Comments? Rd232 10:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree absolutely... Abe Lincoln 20:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most commonly used name. Note that the example cited, People's Republic of Poland, is a historical entity. The current "Republic of Poland" is at Poland. older≠wiser 01:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Wikipedia convention is inconsistent between preferring proper names and most-commonly-used names, but the balance favours the former for countries/places/people, which is as it should be for an encyclopaedia. The major exception is currently-existing countries which tend to reside at the officially-accepted short form. "East Germany" being a form not accepted by the country in question means it does not meet this criterion. (Furthermore, in both English and, especially, in German, official use of the term 'East Germany' was intended as an act of propaganda to deny the legitimacy of the GDR as a separate state - something enshrined in the West German constitution. This usage is less clear in English because the term GDR/German Democratic Republic would often need to carry the bracketed thought ("that's not the one that's actually democratic"), where in German people would know this. So there are also POV issues with the term.) See my comment above on the current West Germany page which I think is a good model for treating informal names that differ significantly from the proper name. Rd232 10:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Naming conventions (country names), a page that (when developed) will hopefully clarify the matter and prevent unnecessary future debate. Rd232 13:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from WP:RM

[edit] East Germany → German Democratic Republic

  • East Germany is an informal name. There seems to be agreement to move to the proper name. Rd232 23:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions of using the mosr commonly used name. older≠wiser 01:13, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - see the naming conventions. -- Naive cynic 01:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is moved, shouldn't West Germany be moved also? Jonathunder 04:29, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
  • Object Naming conventions. Simple. —ExplorerCDT 07:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is my request - see also Talk:East Germany. The basic point is that, to take an example from above, "Ethiopia" is accepted by that government (and its people) as a correct short form of the official state title, "Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia". Nor does the use of the short form express a political POV, as for example, "Republic of Taiwan" does (compare Wiki treatment of Taiwan, Republic of China, Republic of Taiwan) - but it does in the case of East Germany, which is a term coined/adapted specifically to deny the legitimacy of a separate east German state. (Ostdeutschland - East Germany or eastern Germany - was used prior to 1945 to mean various territories to the east of the Elbe, including present-day Poland and beyond.) Of course it was also meant to avoid using the official name, "German Democratic Republic", partly to avoid having to bracket the thought "but that's not the one that's actually democratic" to an audience that frequently wouldn't know. But whilst newspaper and TV short-hand is reasonable, an encyclopaedia's job is not to accommodate ignorance but to combat it. Therefore the GDR page should be at, well, GDR, and the term "East Germany" should be explained on its own page. (Which, Jonathunder, is precisely what West Germany does.) On the wikipedia name conventions (which in these cases are NOT simple or unambiguous) - these suggest preferring common usage, but implicitly only where the short and the long form is equivalent. And whilst William Jefferson Clinton is substantially equivalent to and no more correct than the short form the man himself commonly uses (Bill Clinton), there is a good case that East Germany and GDR are not equivalent, even though they refer to the same entity. (Another comparison: we don't put Marks & Spencer under its informal name Marks and Sparks.) Finally, the wikipedia name conventions page states (last line) "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." Rd232 12:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll concede Ethiopia isn't the best example but what about South Vietnam? There partition was considered offensive to many - should the Wikipedia article be retitled to avoid using the most common term in the English language? "East Germany" may have been a colloquial term rather than the formal one but Wikipedia has decided time and again to follow common usage, not try to change it. Timrollpickering 13:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • "The truth of a statement is not determined by the number of people that believe in it." (Samuel Johnson?) It would seem reasonable to link to the correct name from the colloquial term page, whilst focussing on the term rather than the entity there. But I agree that if there was a consistent and explicit policy on the subject I'd find it easier to accept "East Germany" as the title. (Though I'd probably still disagree. German Democratic Republic redirecting to East Germany - for obvious practical reasons - just gives me the willies. Overriding correct term in favour of colloquial; ouch.) Rd232 14:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There is also South Korea and North Korea. I'll venture that if reunification had not occured, the FRG article would be at West Germany and Germany would be an explanation of the division, much like Korea is now. older≠wiser 13:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well yes - because "West Germany" WAS the FRG. The FRG was the legal successor to the Third Reich, and did not change its legal personality at reunification. (This was one of the fundamental FRG government arguments - "We're the real German state, you 'over there' are just temporarily not part of it.") For Wikipedia, because Germany is the same state now as it was 1949-90, it might involve a fair bit of duplication to describe West Germany in a separate article. So it is reasonable to just point at FRG at Germany as is the case now. Rd232 15:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't understand your point here. East Germany WAS the GDR just as West Germany WAS the FRG. My point is that the common name of both would have been used rather than either "official" name. older≠wiser 15:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • My point was that the present German state (FRG) is the same as the one that existed 1945-1990, during which time it was often known in English as "West Germany". And if we were having this conversation in 1988 I'd still say it should be "FRG" and "GDR" not "West Germany" and "East Germany". Rd232 16:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • And I'm saying that under current conventions, both would be at West and East Germany rather than the formal names. older≠wiser 16:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
              • Your position was clear. I disagree that the convention is. And if it were clarified to match your position, I'd disagree with it too! (But would of course accept it.) Whatever the outcome on this particular move request (heading rapidly for "no"), isn't there somewhere on Wikipedia to develop a consistent and well-defined policy on the name issue? It is a specific problem where there is an issue of correctness, and it's not obvious that simply the most popular term should be used (instead of acknowledging and using the correct term). At least, it's not obvious to me, and I'd like a clear policy. (Clearer than what there is, especially for institutions.) Rd232 16:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Let me intercede here. We have a consistent and well-defined policy. Simply because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong. And to maintain that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with your sentiments...that the world should bend to your will just because...such a vagary the Germans—both East and West—would call Spinnerei. —ExplorerCDT 17:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • "We have a consistent and well-defined policy." - there's a convention, which is clearly stronger than I thought, but I maintain the written policy is not clear for institutions (it is, eg, for persons and most topics). "Simply because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong." - true. "And to maintain that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with your sentiments..." - my prerogative. Just as it's yours to dismiss my arguments by calling them "sentiments". ..."the world should bend to your will" - did I say that? I called for a clearer policy, is that really too much to ask? Rd232 18:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Of the 17 interwiki links on East Germany, fully 15 use GDR or DDR or an equivalent; two (Italian and Portuguese, neither with much content) use the equivalent of East Germany. (Declaration: in checking this I corrected two that were pointing at redirects.) Rd232 18:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What an article is titled in other languages is really not especially relevant for English as it does not tell us anything about what is the most common name in English. And besides, it is possible for the other languages to have established other naming conventions in which the official names are given preference--other language Wikpedias are not bound by the conventions developed on the English Wikipedia. older≠wiser 19:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • The point I was making was that whilst each language wiki develops its own rules and isn't "bound" by any others, the predominance of 'GDR' does suggest that just maybe there's a reasonable case for considering other criteria in conjunction with "the most common". But apparently no-one's interested in debating it even in a general way (non-specific to this page), so forget it, I withdraw the move request; I have better things to expend mental energy on and clearly this isn't going anywhere. :-( Rd232 20:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - East and West Germany were colloquial terms - I don't think we should file countries under nicknames (of course, I would also support Deutsche Demokratishe Republik, since I see the value in calling things by their proper name. More importantly, we have a plethora of articles about the U.K., each under the standard name at the time (which gets messy for to link to if you are talking about things that span more than one name). I support the use of the proper name there. More importantly though, as dealt with on the talk page, "East Germany" represents a particular cold war POV. Given the short history of the German state (1871-1945) I think you could make the argument that a plethora of Germany states is the norm...much like Deutscher Osterreich (forgive my spelling, I'm going by ear...I'm an illiterate when it comes to German) was considered for incorporation into Germany post-WWI. For that matter, Austria's name basically lays claim to the name "East Germany" if you really think about it... Guettarda 16:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. There's nothing factually inaccurate with the current setup as opposed to the China/Taiwan, Ireland, and Macedonia names. --Jiang 01:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Last thing we need is people moving South Korea to Republic of Korea and North Korea to Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Soviet Union to Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and who knows what else. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:04, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
What would be so bad about that? Certainly, in terms of "last things we need" such a scenario falls some way below, say, Microsoft deciding to make Encarta free online and sue Wiki for infringement of Microsoft's right to rule the known universe... ;-) Rd232 14:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even the Ostis call themselves Ostis, not Demokratischers. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's no such word as "Osti"; it's Ossi (informal name), counterpart to Wessi; both originally disparaging and can still be used disparagingly depending on tone. In any case, if you appeal to the German usage, the country is near-as-dammit always referred to as DDR. Major exceptions are colloquialisms like "Osten" (East) or sometimes "Früher" (Earlier) (i.e. before the 1989/90 Wende). Rd232 15:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Naming conventions (country names), a page that will hopefully clarify the matter and prevent unnecessary future debate. Rd232 13:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There should be an explanation of why "East Germany" is better than "German Democratic Republic" there, as a simple statement that it is "preferred" is not going to make people happy. "Cassell's Dictionary of Modern German History" uses "German Democratic Republic" ("the formal name of the East German state of 1949-90") as does Mary Fulbrook's "20th Century Germany", and Langesnscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004 gives the translation of "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" as "German Democratic Republic", with no mention of "East Germany". Saintswithin 09:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems very strange to Germans and even more to East Germans like me to realize that the term "East Germany" was so much more common and known in UK and USA than "German Democratic Republic". Nevertheless I don't oppose the use of East Germany generally. Informal terms should imho only be avoided where they are misleading. Since East Germany was indeed in the Eastern Part of the German territory of that time and there are no other meanings, the term does not seem misleading to me. It is important though that the reader can easily realize that the term was NOT used in Germany that often. Maybe there should be a linguistic chapter, because this is an important fact. --Abe Lincoln 12:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly support - as far as I recall, the term East Germany was a propaganda term from the cold war era, and used in a derogatory way, similar to the colloquial (and more derogatory) Ostzone. The speaker indicated that he did not recognise the GDR as a sovereign state. It was common in the English language used in western Europe and northern America. Anyway, I think there's an ambiguity: while East Germany refers to a geographical place, GDR refers to a state, which are different entities. Any event occurring e.g. in Dresden before 1949 or after 1990 will have occurred in East Germany, but not in the GDR. j.kanev, 31 May 2005

Apparently there is a revert war. Well, what's the fighting over? Did the U.S. in fact broadcast instructions for the demonstrations? That sounds plausible to me; can we get a reference? I don't see any need for revert warring over such a thing. Everyking 09:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a ref for that, but I read in one of Daniela Dahn's books (years ago now) that the move in the Monday demonstrations from "we are the people" to "we are one people" coincided with the appearance of trucks with West German number plates, handing out West German flags. I think anybody with any sense of US history abroad (both recent - Georgia, Ukraine - and other) would find it very, very odd if they (CIA and chums) weren't involved in any way whatsoever. (Which is not the same as saying their influence was necessarily pivotal - we'll never know what might have happened in its absence.) Rd232 13:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Support countries should be called by their proper name not just some generic cliche DudtzImage:Kardos.jpg 7/22/05 7:16 Pm EST

[edit] Economy of East Germany

Can someone explain why Economy of East Germany was pasted into East Germany and the link to it removed? It's far too long, and not a great article anyway (no structure, lots missing (see eg History of East Germany) and possibly derived from CIA or similar source). Rd232 13:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know but I added a cleanup tag, that shit was intolerable for an Encyclopedia article. Kade 18:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communist State/ Totalitarian State Debate

I would say that the most proper name to use would be "Marxist-Leninist" state considering that true "Communism" has no state.--Jersey Devil 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer socialist state. Marxist-Leninist state would also be fine. Communist state would be less than ideal and totalitarian state would be very bad. Everyking 07:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Ideally it should be both socialist and Marxist-Leninist in some non-clumsy phrasing, together with a comment that in the West it was usually described as "communist". Totalitarian shouldn't be in the introduction - but if it has to be, it has to be clearly ascribed to a certain POV and not written as fact. (It's just too loaded and judgemental for an encyclopedia intro, where we don't have room for proper explanation and context.) Possibly there should be a section to look at these issues in more detail, something like Relationship with the West, or Western Attitudes. Rd232 08:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
This form of government (both its ideal form and its real manifestations) used to be called "people's democracy" (google), and still is in the official name of North Korea. I remember it used as a neutral term, i.e. neither endorsing nor disparaging. Zocky 14:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Calling any Soviet satellite state Marxist-Leninist is incorrect. Look up Stalinism. And the idea that we cannot call a spade a spade and refer to East Germany as totalitarian is asinine post-Glasnost revisionism. In Political Science one has to make distinctions between the ideology of the state and the method used to carry out the ideology. In this case, Socialism may be the ideology, but it is carried out through an autocracy. Kade 18:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Power Possesion

Who was the true leader of East Germany? From 1949-89/90 who was the actual leader? Which possetion heald the most power? Who was leader from 1950 onwards? A leader whos reign starts completely in the 50s. User:Vital Component

There generally wasn't a single leader, if you're looking for someone with the power of Hitler or Stalin; the situation was a bit more like a Cabinet government, though General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party was the most powerful position. There were several other key positions (eg Chairman of the Council of Ministers) and a fairly small number of people occupied these 1949-89. (See Leaders of East Germany.)Rd232 4 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Shouldn't the name of this article be German Democratic Republic? As said in the first paragraph, "East Germany" is an informal name Paul 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How come nowhere in the entire article it says the population of the country?

This is the very first mention I have ever seen with East Germany being abbreviated as GDR. In an American encyclopedia (of course, written in English) Collier's Encyclopedia, it was referred to as DDR. Could we change each abbreviation to DDR? And since this is an English-language encyclopedia, and since everyone that speaks English knows this country as East Germany, I say it could be left alone. I wouldn't mind changing the name of the article, but if it does get changed, it should be to no other than Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
Google, when searching for DDR Germany gives a little more than 4 million hits. For GDR Germany, only 1 million. At the very least, every abbreviation for the country in question should be DDR. D. F. Schmidt 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
DDR is also a common abbreviation for a type of memory (DDR SDRAM); you have to be careful with Google searches for this kind of thing. GDR is the correct form in English in my experience. Rd232 talk 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
"DDR" also refers to a very popular video game series. This is an English language encyclopedia, so I lean towards GDR. --TJive 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-edit of recent contributions

Can someone with more time and patience than I go through the recent changes, including by the anons, and check for accuracy, spelling, and NPOV? I noticed some problems. --TJive 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important people

I just removed Jeanette Biedermann from the list of important people. As she was born in 1981 and became famous well after reunification I don't think she should be listed as important people from the GDR. (just in case anyone's wondering) Madcynic 22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports section

Seriously, this part that only talks about steroids is blatantly biased. The sports success was based on different factors, not only on that - not even exclusively. I hope someone with a better knowledge of the background than me can fix that ASAP. --Madcynic 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As the author of that section, I have to agree with the fact that certain amount of discipline is required to win olympic medals and world records. There are of course other factors such as government sponsored professionalism (where the government actually paid these athletes in eastern bloc coutnries to have their full time jobs as sports while the western bloc countries were "amateurs" (which of course is not the case anymore). My expertise lays in the area of steroids in sports and in history. My input in this area is specifically based on that so it can sound biased without the input of others. Just like any other contributing expert members of Wikipedia, I fully support you on the fact that all other areas should be explored and discovered. I certainly encourage others to join and expand this section but the fact is that starting with Soviet Union in 1950s (with the world weightlifting championships as a start) government sponsored steroid usage and the development of technology to mask this usage was in full force. From a population ratio, the success rate of olympic and world records in Eastern Germany and the rapid decline of these success rates after the unification of Germany, Steroids certainly played a major part in East German sports. Steroid Expert 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats not that easy and definitly not true for events like Figure skating, Ski jumping, Gymnastics and many other different disciplines in which East Germany was also very succesful. In fact the use of steroids in only known for a minority of sportsmen (sure in some disciplines this was important, but definitliy not in the majority). The furtherance-system for young people in GDR was much more important and should therefor be listed first (since China uses parts of this system they have also much more success, but yeah many people think that they also use steroids in today China). The population ratio is not always the main fact or how do you explain the success of Norway in the Olympic Winter games. The "rapid decline" of success has much more to do with the downgoing of the furtherance-system and the closing of the most sport schools. By the way there was not such a rapid decline in all ways. East German sportsmen have been much more successful than West Germans in the 1990th in comparison of population ratio, for example in the Winter games. For example even the last Winter games in which Germany was the best nation there were above average East Germans. The ratio of successful East Germans goes down every year - if there are no good (by the way also very hard) sport schools anymore you will not "make" new sport machines, in a democratic country (and Germany today is very liberal) were the cildren can do wath they want you will not find so many kids which want to train all the day. -- It is true, because of the use of steroids EastGermany was more succesful, but it is also true that East Germany would have been one of the leading sport nations because of its sport politics anyway. By the way, maybe they doped the same way in West Germany or America or ..., only because the system of East Germany broke we all know this (and winners write history) --Knarf-bz 09:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to accuse anyone of writing purposefully biased articles, Steroid Expert, I apologize if I came across like I did.
On a side note: Who came up with the idea that soccer was 2nd in popularity in East Germany? --Madcynic 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move by User:PMA: German Democratic Republic → East Germany

User:PMA moved this page from German Democratic Republic to East Germany without first discussing the issue and against a longstanding consensus. He also made several POV edits replacing "GDR" with "East Germany" in the text. The move is highly POV; to quote user Rd232: "East Germany, which is a term coined/adapted specifically to deny the legitimacy of a separate east German state."

I am also offended by what I see as a misuse of administrator privileges:

  1. Moving the page without using the proper requested moves procedure.
  2. Protecting the page to protect ones own edits.

I also do not like the removal of my {{POV-title}} template. -- Petri Krohn 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The common names policy means that this article should be, and is, at East Germany - it was only moved to "German Democratic Republic" in the last few days - a violation of said policy. As for the "GDR" references - look at West Germany, South Vietnam, South Korea and North Korea. the adjectives are rarely "FRG", "RVN", "ROK" "DPRK" etc just as "Australia/n" is preferred over Commonwealth of Australia" and "Commonwealther". PMA 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

After studying the facts (missing history) I must admit that you may have acted in good faith on the page move. However, editing all references to the slanderous form "East German state" is certainly not called for by the "common names policy". It points to a POV on your part.\
How is it slanderous - as i pointed out in reference to those other articles. PMA 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, we have to restore the history before we know who said what. -- Petri Krohn 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong or "slanderous" with the common term "East Germany," which is, and was, the most widely used term to describe the country in English, and was used by the GDR itself. User Rd235 is, simply, wrong. I have no idea where this particular axe to grind came from. As a resident of eastern Germany myself, I have yet to encounter any scholar or institution arguing against the use of "East Germany" to describe the German Democratic Republic, a term that many erroneously believe means the former West Germany (because of the "democratic republic" bit). The move to the formal name was itself carried out without much in the way of consensus. ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing history

We have lost the edit history of this article from before 23 May 2006. Let's fix this so we can discuss the naming issue. -- Petri Krohn 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Article's title is East Germany so we use "East German" where possible rather than GDR. PMA 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Petri Krohn, this article should be changed back to the correct name, and East Germany changed back to a redirect. While in the "west" it may have been called East Germany, the Warsaw Pact and many Germans called it "The DDR". Is the West Germany article called that? Of course it is, because today there is still the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Deutsche Demokratische Republik was the proper name for "East Germany" from the beginning of the Cold War until reunification in 1990. I think this page should be moved back to "German Democratic Republic". I would also like to point out "East Germany" is a Cold War POV Stormscape 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If we have an article at West Germany we should have one here. PMA 06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As someone above pointed out, East Germany was a term used to illustrate that the user of the term did not acknowledge the GDR as a legitimate state. This changed in West Germany in 1972. It is possible that in other countries belonging to the NATO bloc the name East Germany was continued to be used, but I believe that its use could be out of a motive of denigration, I therefore think the article should be filed under German Democratic Republic. --Madcynic 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can come up with some serious proof that the term "East Germany" was used to "illustrate that the user of the term did not acknowledge the GDR as a legitimate state" or that it is "Cold War POV" and was rejected by the GDR itself I would like to see it. I think you might be conflating this usage with terms such as die SBZ, die Zone, drüben, die sogenannte "DDR", etc., that were used to express a position of opposition to the GDR, or non-recognition of any claim to sovereignty, as the West German government did prior to 1970-1972, or the Axel Springer newspapers did until much later. "East Germany" (Ostdeutschland), however, was not a term used in this manner.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge East Germany

Should we not redirect East Germany to here? Skinnyweed 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because it explains the English term. PMA 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Germans in categories

Imho, the list of East German politicians should be removed and the articles put into the category instead. The same for the artists. --Abe Lincoln 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there? --Abe Lincoln 12:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am inclined to agree that such a long list should not appear in the main GDR article. It does rather split the article in half and as you point out would be more useful presented in a category. --Newton2 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First German Cosmonaut

I added the name of Sigmund Jähn to the important people list. August 5, 2006

[edit] Name of Currency

The term "East German Mark" or "Ostmark" in German was the colloquial name of the currency, being mostly used in West Germany. In the GDR, people would simply call it the "Mark" and use the term "Westmark" to distinguish the Deutsche Mark where necessary. The official name of the East German currency changed a few times, the last name that has been in use was "Mark der DDR" or "Mark of the GDR" in English. I suggest changing the item in the infobox accordingly.

[edit] The West Germany article is at: West Germany.

Shouldn't we but the East Germany article at: East Germany. You know for a sense of consistency.--Greasysteve13 03:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. ProhibitOnions  (T) 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, one of the things Wikipedia is not is "consistent". "East Germany" is a bit ambiguous, unlike "GDR". "West Germany" isn't a real article anyway, and as the GDR simply joined the FRG at reunification and so the state previously known as "West Germany" still exists, the situation is not symmetric anyway. Kusma (討論) 09:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
East Germany is certainly not terribly ambiguous. The real issue is that Federal Republic of Germany indicates both West Germany and the current German state. West Germany also looks like a real article to me, but we couldn't have that article at Federal Republic of Germany even if we wanted to. On the other hand, North Korea and South Korea. I don't see what would be wrong with having the article at East Germany. In what way is East Germany ambiguous? "Eastern Germany" would be ambiguous, but I've never heard "East Germany" except in reference to the DDR. john k 09:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I will add to this: the statement in earlier discussions that "East Germany" is offensive and somehow denies the right of the DDR to exist is completely absurd, and no evidence has been provided to back up this statement. I would support a move. john k 09:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
While I understand Kusma's point, and am not all that bothered by the article being at the present name, it runs against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and as John points out, the move to "German Democratic Republic" was made based on some pretty nonsensical, agenda-driven "reasoning." (This was point other users and I made at the time, for all the good it did.) I'd like to see it moved back; there is no real ambiguity in English regarding the term "East Germany," nor did the government of that country dissuade use of the term.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we can all live with it.--Greasysteve13 07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In the German language Wikipedia there are 2 articles about this:

  1. de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1990), i.e. History of the Federal Republic of Germany (1945–1990), describing exactly this, and
  2. de:Westdeutschland, i.e. West Germany, describing the several meanings of "West Germany".

Maybe this would be a good approach here too. --Abe Lincoln 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John K - this article should be at East Germany ala North Korea, South Korea, North Vietnam, South Vietnam. PMA 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re the "Music" section

Was there a state-owned monopolistic record company in the GDR similar to Melodiya in the USSR or Hungaroton in Hungary? If so, would anyone in the know care to add a sentence or short paragraph about this to the section? OMHalck 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite State

I've reverted the "satellite state" language from the box. While the article should indicate that this was the common view from the US (and other places), the box itself should be restricted to uncontested facts (dates, names, government, that sort of stuff). The GDR was recognized as an independent country by most (all?) the countries of the world for almost half a century. Many in the West questioned the degree of independence; the article properly reflects that. But that questioning does not belong in the box at the top. Jd2718 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/r/Talk%7EGerman_Democratic_Republic_9aa6.html"