Talk:Germany/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reasons for the West German "economic miracle"

I didn't think this discussion really belonged under the heading "Morgenthau Plan". "I would propose deleteing the sentence " The recovery occurred largely because of the previously forbidden currency reform of June 1948 and U.S. assistance through the Marshall Plan aid." I don't think it is possible to give one (or two) reasons for the "German Economic Miracle" in the space available here. The Marshall Plan no doubt helped. The dismantling policy (which some would regard as a remnant of the Morgenthau Plan) could also be credited with helping to modernize German industry. The currency reform doubtless played a major part, as did other policies of Ludwig Erhard (who is, surprisingly, not mentioned) in particular. One can, of course, find quotes to back up assertions that one particular thing was the principle cause. If you read the older Mundell, you may find that liberal (European use of the word) economic policies are stressed. If you read articles written 40 years ago (also by Mundell, if I recall correctly -- I can't provide cites at the moment) you will find a model that attributes the economic revival mainly to growth in the young working population (refugees, fugitives, reduction of concealed unemployment in agriculture, etc.). So, in my opinion, we should limit ourselves here to stating that there was an economic revival, popularly called an "economic miracle" (why use the German Wirtschaftswunder; I think "economic miracle" is established -- at least in the UK).--Boson 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to this statement by Nellov5 (talk · contribs)

“ In contrast to the Marshall plan, the Morgenthau plan is deservedly forgotten in present-day Germany, as it had no lasting effect whatsoever. If anything, it should be mentioned in the History of Germany article. Therefore, removing the link to the Marshall plan subarticle makes no sense, particularly since it doesn't shorten the section as a whole either. I have therefore reverted the change. ”

Fussy logic used in that statement aside, please show, using sources, why the Marshall plan should take up space in the history of Germany section? I suspect that you are suffering under what appears to be a common German fallacy to believe in a fairly-tale myths about events in the late 40’s and early 50’s, for example by giving the Marshall plan far more credit than it deserves as regards German economic development.

“ To this day, a truly astonishing number of Germans (and almost all advanced high school students) have an idea what the Marshall Plan was, although their idea is very often very inaccurate. They think the Marshall Plan was aid given exclusively to West Germany; that it was given in the form of a vast amount of dollars (cash); that it was an outright gift from the U.S. Many Germans believe that the Marshall Plan was alone responsible for the economic miracle of the Fifties. And when scholars come along and explain that reality was far more complex, they are sceptical and disappointed. ”

Now, let me show you why it is a waste of space to include the Marshall plan:

Out of a total of $13 billion, Germany received only $1,4 billion, a large part of which was in the form of loans. To compare, the free aid received by other nations. France: $2,3 billion; Netherlands $1,2 billion; United Kingdom: $3,3 billion. Or why not compare it to what the Western Allies took out of Germany directly: Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years the U.S. pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. John Gimbel comes to the conclusion, in his book "Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany", that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10,0 billion. Ref: Norman M. Naimark "The Russians in Germany" pg. 206. (Naimark refers to Gimbels book) So, with one hand they take almost $10,0 billion worth of know-how (halting all research in Germany for several years, since anything new that a German company invented also automatically was given to its U.S competitors whose representatives were free to take home to the U.S. all archives and documentation), while with the other "giving" $1,4 billion, a large part of which has to be repaid. (in 1953 it was decided that $1.1 billion was to be repaid to the U.S.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. and U.K. were still busy reducing the German economy in order to make sure that Germany would never have the strength to threaten the U.S. again. In occupied Germany the Morgenthau plan lived on in the "industrial disarmament" plans, designed to reduce German economic might and to destroy Germany's capability to wage war by complete or partial de-industrialisation and restrictions imposed on utilization of remaining production capacity. By 1950, after the virtual completion of the by the then much watered-out plans, equipment had been removed from 706 manufacturing plants in the west and steel production capacity had been reduced by 6,700,000 tons. Ref: Frederick H. Gareau "Morgenthau's Plan for Industrial Disarmament in Germany" The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 517-534

(Must have been good for business, take away German industrial machinery and all German patents and other technical know-how, then give Germany loans that can only be spent in north america thereby keeping the U.S. economy going strong when Germany eventually tries to rebuild what has been taken away.)

Or why not see what David R. Henderson has to say about the Marshal plan in regards to the German economic recovery: From German Economic "Miracle"

“ This account has not mentioned the Marshall Plan. Can't the German revival be attributed mainly to that? The answer is no. The reason is simple: Marshall Plan aid to Germany was not that large. Cumulative aid from the Marshall Plan and other aid programs totaled only $2 billion through October 1954. Even in 1948 and 1949, when aid was at its peak, Marshall Plan aid was less than 5 percent of German national income. Other countries that received substantial Marshall Plan aid had lower growth than Germany.

Moreover, while Germany was receiving aid, it was also making reparations and restitution payments that were well over $1 billion. Finally, and most important, the Allies charged the Germans DM7.2 billion annually ($2.4 billion) for their costs of occupying Germany. (Of course, these occupation costs also meant that Germany did not need to pay for its own defense.)

 ”

Nellov5 (talk · contribs): If you want to keep reinserting the Marshall plan into the history section, provide some secondary source that motivates that inclusion! As far as I can tell, you have no legs to stand on at the moment.--Stor stark7 Talk 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm not going to comment on Stor stark7s redundant elaborations about the Morgenthau plan (which already take up the biggest part of this page). The only reason why I posted under that heading was because I didn't want to start a new topic. This editor clearly has issues with America's post-war policy regarding Germany (which may be due in part to the widespread anti-Americanism in the Swedish educational system). It is telling that Wikipedia's German country page doesn't give any reasons for the "Wirtschaftswunder". They obviously understand that an overview of a country's history is not to include too many details. Stor stark7 should indulge in his obsession in the subarticles, but not here. "The recovery occurred largely because of the previously forbidden currency reform of June 1948.[12]". The new sentence suggests that the "economic miracle" occurred solely because of the currency reform, when clearly that is disputable at best. One economist's opinion is just that - an opinion, and no more valid than the article about the Marshall plan whose link was removed. I agree with Boson who states that we should limit ourselves here to stating that there was an economic revival. Which is why I have made the appropriate change. Nellov5 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you’re taking the easy way out by accepting the exit offered you by Boson. Wise choice. I have to say that your little fictive analysis of the supposed "anti-Americanism" of the Swedish educational system was rather cute. Any source to back it up, or just a figment of your imagination purveyed as fact? I also note that you have trouble with the difference between the English words "largely" and "solely". As to one economists opinion, sourced opinion I might add, that is in fact quite a lot more valid than your inclusion of the Marshall plan without any source at all. As to my alleged "issues with America's post-war policy regarding Germany", I’m only interested in getting an as accurate and sourced picture presented as possible. If some peoples "un-sourced" illusions get broken by it, to bad. It is truly sad that so many people with such strong opinions on this topic seem to have read absolutely no literature about it, and yet persist in purveying their uninformed opinions as facts. Ever wondered why, more than two years after the cease fire in Europe, George Marshall started lobbying for a "European recovery program"? Why not read a quote by Ray Salvatore Jennings [1]
"The rest of Europe, previously dependent on the industrial base of pre-war Germany, continued its listless recovery. This vulnerability of Europe, the destitution of the German public, and continued concern over Soviet intentions moved the Joint Chiefs of Staff to join Clay in lobbying Truman to change course. By winter, Truman had sacked Secretary of State James Byrnes, replacing him with General George Marshall. By the summer of 1947, Marshall had successfully made the argument that JCS 1067 must be rescinded on "national security grounds" and replaced by JCS 1779."
Or to quote Vladimir Petrovs conclusion on the effects of U.S. policy in Germany: "The victorious Allies … delayed by several years the economic reconstruction of the war torn continent, a reconstruction which subsequently cost the US billions of dollars." Or why not read a concise explanation of the European state of affairs and Germany’s role in it in mid 1947 from the time in question, when at least the Americans finally seemed to have "seen the light". "Pas de Pagaille!", Time magazine--Stor stark7 Talk 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Is there anything in this about the cencorship of violent video games?

Most of the censorship in germany you think of is really just some form of youth protection where advertising and selling of violent media to minors is prohibited. Adults can still buy and play the games, although it might be hard to find a shop selling them. I don't know if you want to call this censorship or not, but it it has very little impact on german society. There is also some full scale censorship in connection with the nazi heritage, the most prominent example is that selling copies of "Mein Kampf" is prohibited in germany.

AFAIK it's allowed to sell antiquarian versions of Mein Kampf.--217.85.95.65 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not allowed to be sold, but like many censorships has only made a highly suspicious product more attractive to ceratin target groups. 84.171.91.118 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. "Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well unless it is done in such a fashion as to "promote hatred or war", which is, under anti-revisionist laws, generally illegal." The only thing you can't do is sell newly printed books - because that would break Copyright Law. Lars T. 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Current_availability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany The German censorship is more than just youth protection, and it has impact on the German society (sometimes trange impacts, there was cases lately where people were tried because they had anti-nazi-symbols.

They were acquitted also 87.234.85.141 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The most censorship in germany will do the FSK (Movies) and USK (entertainment / computer). This are organisation of the movie and entertainment industry to control publication before going out. Agreement: The goverment don't make laws for censorship while we censoship our self. The appeal for crime or violence also agitation for hate isn't allowed in german media. marian (194.114.62.66 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

It is not true that reprinting and selling "Mein Kampf" and comparable books is prohibited by copyright laws, in fact, this statement is false, for several reasons which need not be explained here. The fact is that nazi-literature (among which "Mein Kampf", obviously, holds the most prominent position) is indeed illegal in the sense that it must not be published and distributed (neither for money nor for free). Except, indeed, antiquarian books. Neo-nazi publishers - to my knowledge, successfully - try to circumvent this prohibition of nazi-texts by reprinting and expressly stating in a preamble that the books are reprinted for the sake of historical documentation and study. (Which, of course, is only a pretext.) Yet, to my knowledge no legal reprint of "Mein Kampf" exists, that is to say, no reprint by a German publisher. There seem to be reprints around that are produced outside of Germany and smuggled into the country. Most public libraries do not hold a copy of "Mein Kampf", and those which do apply restrictive lending policies with regard to it. You would be asked about the purpose of your request, would get it only for studying in the reading-room, etc.141.91.129.5 11:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Printing "Mein Kampf" in Germany is indeed illegal due to copyright law. The state of Bavaria has inherited Hitler's estate, including the copyright, except in countries where the rights have been explicitely secured by an act of government (this applies to the UK and the Netherlands, AFAIK). Copyright is life of author+70 years, so it expires in May 2015. Bavaria does not currently allow reprinting of the book. This is a peculiar situation, and does not, of course, apply to Neonazi creations, as they typically hold the copyright for their own works. --Stephan Schulz 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that "Mein Kampf" must not be printed and distributed because of special legislation against "hate-literature". It is news to me that Bavaria holds the copyright, but I'm not in the position to contradict this statement. I uphold, however, that, although copyright legislation may be an additional tool that could be used against reprinting the book until 2015, the real reason why it is not reprinted is censorship (which term, in this case, I use in a neutral sense). As to neo-nazi literature: there seems to be a misunderstanding; I didn't refer to neo-nazi "creations", i. e., new texts, of course, but to things like "Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion", the "Semi-Gotha" and other anti-semitic stuff for which copyright has expired. For all I know the distribution of these texts is prohibited, and the neo-nazi publishers try to circumvent the ban by the means I described in my posting.141.91.129.4 07:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just learned that the copyright for "Mein Kampf" is indeed held by the state of Bavaria; since I believe it is good practice not to pretend that one has all sorts of special knowledge in one's egghead, here's the source:www.damaschke.de/marginalia/1998/anfrage-1998-07-12.php. The source is undoubtedly reliable: it is an answer by the Bavarian government to a query from a journalist. The same answer also indicates that even without the copyright protection of "Mein Kampf", which - in this case paradoxically - is used to keep the book off the market, it would be difficult to reprint it without risking an indictment on the grounds of diverse paragraphs of German penal law (against "hate-literature" and the like). So, in a broad sense, it is correct to say that "Mein Kampf" is "verboten" in Germany. That doesn't mean that you must not possess or read it, and it also doesn't prohibit the sale of antiquarian copies. For all I know there is no book the possession of which is prohibited by German law, although there is recent legislation against even the possession of "child-pornography"; as far as I know this law is unique in that it is not only directed against the production and distribution of pictures and the like, but also against the acquiring and possessing such stuff. The new law was a direct consequence of the relatively new phenomenon of distribution and redistribution of pornographic material via the internet. I'm not sure whether it actually prohibits the possession of that special kind of pornography in the form of books (and I even don't know whether there are that kind of books, to begin with).141.91.129.4 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not satisfied with the map

I'm not very happy with the CIA map of Germany used in this article. For instance, why does it show the river Danube but not the Rhine which is at least as important to Germany in economics and history, probably even more important? Why does it show the rather small city of Emden in the northwest corner of the country but no city at all in the southwest corner - where Freiburg im Breisgau would be located, a city four times as large as Emden and historically very important? I have nothing against Emden, but that's an inconsistency a map in a featured article shouldn't exhibit in my opinion. Gestumblindi 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason is obvious: we don't have a better one (with the needed rights to free use) Lars T. 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope there are some people here who could draw a better one (I can't, don't have such skills) :-) Gestumblindi 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too fond of the CIA maps myself.. Brutannica 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying not to come off the subject too much, yes. The CIA maps are a bit...weird. The one of Germany, certainly, is a little off. P.S. I might be able to draw a new map, although by the time you read this there probably already is one. Ninington 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow it can only be some American conspiracy... John 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Section Needs Changing

Minor little edit needs to be made. It says the German population is about 19% of foreign descent or at elast partially, when in fact the sources that were linked to back this statement up place the number as being somewheres along the lines of 8-9%, natural births of immigrants included. This should probably be changed.

CorneliusStump 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

can anyone tell me how has germany benefitted since it became a member of the european union and how germany has beneffited the european union since it became a memberSdarcy 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infrastructure and Transportation needed!

There is yet no section about the 2 topics. Lear 21 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They were taken out during clean-up Lars T. 15:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a standard section within country articles and should be reintroduced. Lear 21 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that a mention of Germany's world re-known Autobahn and high-speed trains would definitely be worth a little section. Signaturebrendel 17:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Transport section was removed after the discussion about the featured article status because it is not standard in FA articles. Lars T. 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

@Lars T.:Which country-FA-article is meant, when it´s said to be not standard? All comparable industrialized country articles include Infrastructure and Transportation content. Especially Germany is well known for it´s dense mobility net. It is rather a question of relevance and priority. And in this case Hamburg harbour, Frankfurt Airport, Autobahn, ICE, Transrapid are almost crucial for the understanding of Germany. Lear 21 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you believe that other sections such as transport, which do not appear on other FA national articles." There isn't much more — you should ask User:TSO1D, he handled the whole FA process including editing almost on his own. Lars T. 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

he? Lear 21 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Germany has benifited from jopining the EU because now it has established itself as one of the strongest countries in Europe and the world. It is also getting many natural resources from other countries part of the EU that it does no have. I hope this helps you. Peace out. 21 March, 2007

I believe it is very wrong to bring in the import of natural resources as a major point why Germany benefits from the EU (or its predecessors, especially the EEC). The bulk of German imports of indispensable natural resources comes from non-EU countries: gas, oil, coal, aluminium, copper, uranium etc. Germany has little natural resources (except coal, but coal-mining in Germany is too expensive to be able to compete with world market-prices), and at least since WW II the German economy has been predominantly dependent on exporting industrial goods (cars, machines, optical instruments etc.). The EEC and the EU have obviously been of major importance for Germany as free trade zones: an export-oriented economy must always be interested in an international market that precludes high tariffs on imported goods.

It is also wrong to imply that membership in the EU has made Germany "one of the strongest countries in Europe and the world". This was true long before the creation of the EU; the creation of th EU (after the unification of Eastern and Western Germany)happened largely for political and strategic reasons: both France and the UK, but also the German government itself wanted to integrate the now even larger and "stronger" Germany into an more closely interdependent political body in order to curb possible German inclinations to follow their own path (like becoming too friendly with Russia) and using its economic or even military power to put pressure on the rest of Europe. The creation of a European currency (that replaced the Deutschmark as the strongest national currency in Europe)was one major step in this direction; in the press it was said that it was the price Chancellor Kohl had to pay the French president Mitterand for his approval of the German unification.141.91.129.5 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

[ˈbʊndəsrepubliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant] is wrong, it should be something like this: [ˈbʊndəsrepuˌblɪk ˈdɔʏtʃlant]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.88.205 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21

my bad i was talking to the article above me 21, MArch, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.242.126 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-22

I think [repuˈblɪk] is getting more common, but I believe it is still regional, with [repuˈbli:k] being preferred.
Duden Aussprachewörterbuch has:
  • ˈbʊndəs
  • repuˈbliːk
  • ˈdɔytʃlant ( with tie bars linking ɔy and tʃ )
So I would change the pronunciation to [ˈbʊndəsrepuˌb liːk ˈdɔ͜yt͜ʃlant] --
if I could get both tie bars to work properly.
--Boson 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The final "d" is definitely unvoiced in normal speech.--Boson 05:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely true. One of the main differences between English and German phonology is that there are no voiced plosives and fricatives in the final position of syllables and words at all. Written b, d, g are [p, t, k], an s is always [s], never [z]. That accounts for at least a third of pronunciation mistakes when Germans speak English: they don't differentiate between "rib" and "rip", "bed" and "bet", "log" and "lock", "fuss" and "fuzz", "lose" like "loose". "Lands" tends to sound like "lance" etc. The loss of "soft" final consonants happened when Old High German became Middle High German, at about the same time when Old English became Middle English, an it is one of the main features that began to differentiate the sound of the two closely related languages.141.91.129.2 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support Germany-article for Today's featured article !

Please comment at Today's featured article for this proposal. Lear 21 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures in Third Reich section

Someone replaced the previous picture of German soldiers at the Polish border with a picture of a bombed-out Potsdamer Platz from the postwar period. I think we should stick to pictures depicting events from the period in question. I don't mind another picture, but it should at least be from the Third Reich, and not showing the aftermaths of the war (which should be in the postwar section). I have therefore restored the original image.

Nellov5 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WW 2 is inevitably connected to Third Reich. The Potsdamer Platz aftermath image is taken in 1945 and is part of WW2 results caused by Third Reich. Lear 21 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the caption clearly reads "Berlin in ruins AFTER WW2"! Thus the photo was taken during the postwar period, even if the destruction resulted from the war. I will revert to the previous image until a photo taken during the war is put up. Nellov5 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh you want to nitpick? That photo was taken 1945 July 9, over a month before WW2 ended (even if only in the Pacific). Lars T. 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking correct. Lear 21 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Potsdamer Platz pic should stay-it shoulds the devastating destruction caused WWII. Signaturebrendel 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 million dead?

the article says germany suffered 10 million dead in WWII, the highest I had ever heard was about 5 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

World War II casualties, apparently supported by citations, gives a gigure of 7.5 million.--Boson 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Add to that the 2 million who died during the Expulsion of Germans after World War II and the thousands that died of malnutrition after the war. Lars T. 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The actual quote from the article (my emphasis): "The war resulted in the death of several million German soldiers and civilians, in total nearly ten million". Lars T. 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Allemagne"

Why does "Allemagne" redirect here with no explanation or mention of the term in the article?--24.22.147.202 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea why there needs to be a redirect, but it's simply French for Germany, and so does not need mentioning in the article. Lexicon (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: of course, "Allemagne" is French for "Germany", but it is by no means superfluous to explain why in the Romanic languages the country and its people are called by a completely different name than in the Germanic languages. In all (Indoeuropean)languages I know the names of Italy, France and England can easily be identified as stemming from the same root; this is not so with Germany, where you have three different roots for "Allemagne", "Deutschland", and "Germany". Is it not interesting that only in Dutch and the Scandinavian languages the name of the country is derived from the same root as the German name (Deutschland, Duitsland, Tyskland etc.)? There are historical and linguistic explanations for this quite peculiar phenomenon, and I find them not at all irrelevant.141.91.129.5 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Germany has a different name in the Romanic languages — but then it has a different name in most other languages too (as do many other countries). See Names for Germany for more info. Hrrm, come to think of it, I'll change that redirect to go there. Lars T. 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course "Germany has a different name in most other languages (as do most other countries)", but, I was referring to the roots of the names, and pointed out that Germany is a special case in so far as that even in the context of the Indoeuropean languages it is not one single root from which the different names for Germany are derived from; while for Italy, France, England, Spain, Sweden and most others this is not the case: there you have one root from which the modern names in the different present-day languages is derived from. There are 4 different Indoeuropean roots for names of the country that are currently used in Indoeuropean and other languages. Give me one example of another European country for which this statement holds true, too. - Anyway, the main idea was that the point that there is Allemagne/Germany shouldn't be dismissed by an abrupt "it's simply French for Germany", but that there is more (of historical and linguistic significance) to it. 141.91.129.3 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Semi-Protection

A semiprotection for the article Germany would be much appreciated. Several unregistered users did their ongoing nonsense the last days. The upcoming appearance as Today´s FA - article on the Main Page (07.04.) will probably provoke more of it. 7 day- protection should be fine. Thanks in advance and all the best Lear 21 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I've noticed that this article has been notoriously hit frequently by vandals. Longer-term and/or permanent semi-protection would be very appropriate... Ranma9617 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it should be at least semi-protected. I have this on my watchlist from when it was on the main page, and it is still vandalized alarmingly often. --LuigiManiac 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The many different names have their roots in the past. Before you are able to talk of a country, in "Germany" had lived the "Allemannen" and "Germanen" and other tribes. For example the "Allemannen" had lived close to the border of France.

[edit] My screw-up

Due to my recent edit, the article uses the "U.S.–German Economic Relations Factsheet" reference twice. However, I didn't and still don't know how to do that fancy thing where a reference that is used more than once is given the same footnote number. So now, ref. 22 and 23 are the same. I am very sorry for that and would be very grateful to the person who either fixes it or tells me how I can fix it (although I have to go offline now, and wouldn't be able to do it while the article is featured on the main page). Blur4760 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!!!

Congratulations to all who made one of my favorites pages today featured article. Just watch out for vandalism, cuz it become pretty bad when the article is on the main page and sadly featured articles aren´t protected. Auf Wiedersehen!!! --ometzit<col> 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes great work, it 's nice to have important core topics like this high quality, really helps the credibility of the project. Trevor GH5 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WOOOOOOH!!! I'm a German myself, and it's extremely exciting to see this on the Main Page finally. Time to play some German patriotic songs...

Yeah, I'll bet it's gotten lots of Nazi references from vandals by now. Brutannica 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay. Trevor GH5 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Cultural Influence

Would anyone like to work together to add on both this article and the German Culture article on the effects of Hermann Hesse's works on western youth culture? If you go to any school in the United States, Canada, or Great Brittan and you will hear of his works among those who are choosing the slackers way through school, and it has been so for some time. Steppenwolf has also influenced the band of the same name, of which have been extremely successful musically, and applying Hesse's ideas to their own work. --Taken By Robots 04:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea- Hesse has a profound impact on me as a young man! Siddhartha and Demian were profoundly influential for me! Perhaps even a shout out to Hesse would start that and could be added to...! Alex Jackl 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I just added a reference to Hesse. (It got wiped out but I think accidentally by editors dealing with the vandalism)Alex Jackl 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I also added a reference to Heidegger due to his strong influence on philosophy overall. Despite the political controversies around him I doubt scholar's would question his influence on modern philosophy or that he was one of Germany's great thinkers.... Alex Jackl 13:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this irrelevant to the article (Hesse). What exactly does "those who are choosing the slackers [sic] way through school" mean? That is subjective to the point of being derogatory. I don't see how a "slacker" could find any inspiration in a novel like The Glass Bead Game. Furthermore, there are some German authors that probably deserve mention before Hesse, such as Nobel laureates Grass, Boll and especially Thomas Mann. Timocrates 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree that Boll, Gunter Grass and Thomas Mann should be mentioned. I just don't think it is "instead of " Hesse. Let's add them! I think Germany's literary contributions are a critical part of its story! I don't get the slacker thing either, but it doesn't change Hesse's prominence.Alex Jackl 13:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I meant to say those who aren't taking the slackers way though high school. --Taken By Robots 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Slavs?

In this edit, Slavs are removed from the list of peoples persecuted by the Third Reich regime, with the reason that it "implies that Slavs were persecuted to the same extent as Jews", while leaving every other group that also suffered to some extent, though I'd have thought all not to the same level as Jews, and probably in most cases, not even as much as Slavs. I didn't change it back, as there may be reasoning either way, and I'm not entirely sure if what I'm saying is right, but my personal opinion is that they either didn't read it properly, which is probably most likely, or they have some personal bias for Jews, or against Slavs. --86.130.29.170 10:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I restored the Slavic peoples reference not because I have a strong opinion about it or any statistics either way but that the removal seemed somewhat arbitrary- there are many races/cultures/types of people listed on the list there of people who were persecuted and killed by the Third Reich. Who knows how many of each and what order of precedence. Frankly, even if I knew, I wouldn't add that information- I think that that is too much detail for a general article like this. If someone feels strongly about the Slav/no-Slav deal let's talk about it on the talk page. I think given the article's public prominence right now it is even more important that we be conservative in our editing. Danke!! Alex Jackl 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austria and the Anschluss?

I can't believe this wasn't mentioned in the post-Weimar/pre-WWII section. BipolarBear 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

History sections of country articles are meant to provide an overview of a specific period in a country's history, thus only covering key events. The section in question is called "The Third Reich", the article doesn't contain a separate "post-Weimar" or "pre-WII" section. It was the invasion of Poland that triggered WWII, not the "Anschluss". The sub-articles (WWII, Nazi Germany, etc.) are the place to look for regarding a complete list of the Third Reich's conquests - before or during the war.

Nellov5 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Great Power"

Germany was classified as a "great power" in 1871-1918 — when the term was widely used to describe France, Germany, Britain, Russia, the U.S. and, arguably Italy and Austria-Hungary. I suppose Germany was again briefly a "great power" during the Nazi nightmare, but I don't believe it's applicable to today's Germany in the context of present-day politics. Very few contemporary Germans would choose to describe their country as a Grossmacht, as their grandparents or great-grandparents would have.

Today, the "great powers" (the term is no longer widely used) are the U.S., Russia, China and, arguably, the U.K. Sca 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See article on great power. It´s a standard term in Wikipedia country articles. Lear 21 15:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw it, and disagree with what it says. The term "great power" is outmoded, archaic — and basically has been since the end of WWII. Sca 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That´s why it is coined 'modern'. Lear 21 16:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sca, "great power" is subjective and should not be used in country article intro's. Perhap's "The Federal Republic of Germany, with Europe's largest economy, is an economic power" would be better. --A.Garnet 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I understand the POV sound of the term, I actually disagree. The World Wars wrecked Germany and it's not what it once was, sure, but it's still Europe's largest economy, the world's third largest, and one of the three main powers in the EU. Plus there's a chance at a permanent UN Security Council seat (maybe??). I think it deserves the status, and I don't think the term is outdated, either, just not used as much. ("Great powers" have existed throughout history, really, as have superpowers in my opinion.) Brutannica 07:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. "Great power" isn't outdated - but it certainly is debatable. Personally I would say there is one super power in the world since 1991 (the United States, obviously) and a handful or so of great powers: Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and China (arguably on its way to becoming a super power). --dllu 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonderweg?

Shouldn't there at least be an obvious link to the Sonderweg page considering that it is considered crucial by many historians (refer to actual article for more info) to understanding the influence that germany has undeniably had on western history in the 20th century? its probably to big to have a large explanation in this article, but i still think that it should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movingpictures100@hotmail.com (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What is the oldest text in German Language?

If somebody point to the internet high resolution scans - thanks . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.244.169 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello, I was taught in school that this is the oldest text in the German Language: "ek hlewagastiR holtijaR horna tawido", which means: "I, Hlewagastir of Holstein, made this horn".

Golden horns of Gallehus

Not very much, i'm afraid...

From carolingian times we have more complete texts:

a) Merseburger Zaubersprüche

b) Heliand

c) Wessobrunner Gebet

d) Muspilli

e) Hildebrandslied

[edit] Is Mozart "German" ?

Why is Mozart listed as an example of German composer ? He was Austrian. I would suggest Johannes Brahms as the third example (to complete the " 3 B's" of music ) Wentu Wentu 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an old question, but Mozart indeed was a German. He was born in the Archbishopric of Salzburg, which then was a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. His father was from Augsburg in Bavaria. And not least: Mozart considered himself a German composer. --Happolati 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Most likely because he was born in the Archbishopric of Salzburg, a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation but not of Austria, and spent most of his time in Vienna, which was then part of the Archduchy of Austria, again a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Austria did not secede from the rest of Germany until the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Interestingly enough, that war is also known as the German-Prussian war in Austria and Germany, and the "German" in that designation refers to Austria. The point being: it is nonsense to speak of Austria as an entity seperate from Germany for any time at least before 1866, if not 1945 (You may want to look into the article "German Austria" regarding that last date). While it may be a valid question, I cannot help but think of the end of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus every time someone says "Mozart was Austrian, not German". Blur4760 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you make of Finnish composer Jean Sibelius? He was born in what was part of the Russian Empire at the time, the Grand Duchy of Finland. Does that make him a Russian composer? Calling Mozart a German composer seems a bit of a stretch, IMO. Nellov5 23:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Finns were still an ethnic group apart from Russians during that time. The concept of an Austrian ethnicity independent of a larger German nation did not exist during Mozart's lifetime, because Austria was never an entitity disconnected from a bigger Germany until they were forced to withdraw from the German confederation after 1866. They were always part of the HRE and always a part of the German confederation. Austria proper during Mozart's lifetime was as German as Bavaria or Brandenburg, or whatever part of the Kingdom of Germany (a constitutent part of the HRE) you want to pick populated by German-speaking people. (By the way, Austria was part of the Kingdom of Germany). The series of events that lead to Austria being no longer a part of Germany cannot be identified before the end of the HRE. On what basis would you claim that the German-speaking parts of the Habsburg dominion that were both within the HRE and the Kingdom of Germany (as opposed to German-speaking parts of Bohemia) were any different than the German-speaking parts of Brandenburg-Prussia that were within the HRE and Germany? Blur4760 00:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: If you can read German, read this. While I am unsure about whether Austrians form a people apart of the Germans nowadays and while there may be more scholarly essays about the question, it is an illuminating article on how German Austria considered itself to be before 1945. Blur4760 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
PPS: I withdraw the implication that Bohemia was outside the titular jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Germany. The three titular kingdoms of the HRE were Germany, Italy and Burgundy, and in fact, during Mozart's lifetime almost the entire empire seems to have been constituted by the Kingdom of Germany. Doesn't change the fact though that Austria was part of said kingdom. Blur4760 01:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to the German concept of equating ethniticity with nationality. A concept that is not used or accepted in other countries such as France or Great Britain. By this definition, Hungary's national composer Franz Liszt wouldn't be Hungarian because he was born in the Habsburg empire, was of German ethniticity, and never even learned how to speak Hungarian fluently. Yet he considered himself a Hungarian. Likewise, Finland's national composer Jean Sibelius wouldn't be Finnish, since he was born into a Swedish-speaking family that belonged to that other ethnic group called "Finland Swedes". The Fins and the Swedes are completely different ethnic groups and their languages have nothing in common. I therefore find this German concept to be quite outdated and a relic of the 19th century. WIKIPEDIA's country article about Austria states that Beethoven spent most of his life in Vienna, yet he is not called an Austrian composer (as opposed to the other names mentioned there). Everyone knows that he was born in Bonn, while Mozart was born in Salzburg. The difference is one of geography - seen from today's perspective - and not of ethniticity. Regardless of redrawn borders of the past. (Nellov5 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)).

I completely- and respectfully- disagree! I think the problem is the OPPOSITE one- we try to interpret the past form the "redrawn borders of the" PRESENT. We have to look at any historical figure or event in the context it was happening in. In Mozart's time he was German - period. No question at all. Salzburg was not an Austrian city - it was a German city. That is why it is a little foolish to do that- otherwise do you say that a Mayan in 900 was a citizen of Mexico? No - they were part of the Mayan Empire. Saying anything else makes no sense. Alex Jackl 05:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems this is a contentious issue. To add to the confusion, "A spokeswoman from the Austrian embassy in London told BBC News Online said that Mozart was neither German or Austrian as he came from Salzburg when it was its own city state". Raymond Arritt 05:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it possible that this state fell under the protection of the HRE, though? There were many states that existed like that at the time. I personally think he should be called a German composer. If I were to invent the time machine and 150 years from now the east and west US split, would I in 300 years be called an "Eastian inventor?" (just to make up some ridiculous term for what the Eastern US might be called under the newly formed robot dictatorship ;-)). If I'm not mistaken, this is the issue at hand. If he considered himself a German composer, that is the most important thing. JHMM13 05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: To you Liszt was Hungarian because he considered himself Hungarian — but Mozart was Austrian because you say so, despite Mozart calling himself a German. While we're at it — is Bruce Willis (born in Idar-Oberstein) a German? Lars T. 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To understand the german-austrian development it is better to read Kleindeutsche Lösung. That Austria is not "german" today has a couple of reasons. Which historic person is german or from Germany was also discussed in the de.wikipedia. One result was, that the term Deutschland or Teutschland (Germany) has been used since the 16th century. This term included Austria in the 18th century. But I think it is acceptable not to state austrian persons of history as germans, due to the independence of Austria in presence. Geo-Loge 09:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What about all the Habsburg emperors of the HRE and Kings of Germany? Would you say they were not German, even though they were Kings of Germany and Empererors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, only because Austria is an independent country today? Blur4760 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Augustus II the Strong polish due to he was King of Poland? I do not think so. Geo-Loge 10:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
With the same argument you can say, that the Queen is german due to the Windsors are the renamed german House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. It is difficult to define nationality of monarchs by their functions and places of ruling. Geo-Loge 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
@Geo-Loge Personally, yes I would say that Augustus the Strong was Polish. He is listed as a Polish and Lithuanian monarch. Regardless of that question however, your examples of Augustus and Elizabeth II differ from the Habsburg emperors. The Habsburg emperors were kings of Germany and emperors of the HRE at a time when Austria was an integral part of both Germany and the HRE. But neither was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a part of Saxony, nor is the Queen currently Queen of a constituent country of an overarching German kingdom or German-Roman empire. Blur4760 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the Habsburger as well as Augustus the Strong were monarchs in personal unions concerning primary their own princedoms and some additional functions. All three example of monarchs ruling somewhere are quit different, you right, but at least you can state, that an austrian monarch has been in a political function concerning Germany (or the Holy Roman Empire of german nations). As like as Augustus was King of Poland the Habsburger were Kings of Bohemia. But both only ruled this nations on power interests; August became King by repress the french François Louis, Prince of Conti. Of course the Emperor state of Germany differs from that, but due to the separation of Austria, I would prefer to see them as austrians in a german position. Geo-Loge 21:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

@Nellov5: Well, for starters I believe Liszt was not born in the HRE or what was considered to be Germany at that time, because the Burgenland belonged to Hungary. Secondly, I wonder if any one would consider Agrippina the Younger to be German. She was born in Cologne afterall. What about Charlemagne? Is he German? I would say no, because when he was born, there were no German people. Likewise, there was no Austrian nation seperate from Germany during Mozart's lifetime. Thus, I don't think my argument can be boiled down to "equating ethniticity with nationality". It comes down to using todays categories of nationality (Austrian vs German) that make no sense in a past that simply didn't make any difference between the two. PS: I am not saying Mozart was not Austrian. PPS: There was of course a difference between Austrian and German during Mozart's lifetime. The same there is between German and Saxon or German and Brandenburgian or German and Bavarian. The one is a subset of the other. Blur4760 09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

@Geo-Loge: I don't want to stray to far away from Mozart, and I feel that discussing the "nationality" of Monarchs will do exactly that. Coming back to Mozart: when you say seperation of Austria, please tell me what in your opinion seperated the Archduchy of Austria proper from the rest of Germany? Was it the fact that the Habsburger at the same time ruled territories that were outside of Germany? That is the same case for Brandenburg. Both Brandenburg and Austria were territories ruled by monarchs who held territories outside of Germany and the HRE. But no one would argue that anyone living in Berlin during Mozart's lifetime was not German. Why then exclude the possibility that being German and being Austrian were not mutually exclusive, but complementary, just like being German and Brandenburgian were complimentary? Only because Austria was forced to withdraw from the German Confederation 80 years after Mozart's lifetime and took another 80 years to develop a completely seperate national identity. Or do you exactly mean that separation, a seperation that did not take place during Mozart's lifetime but only much later. Then you retroactively apply today's categories of nationality. However, such retroactive application cannot be consistently achieved. What would be the criterion to decide if someone was German or Austrian? Parentage? Place of birth? Domicile? According to which borders? Modern or historical? Self-identification is not feasible because you cannot except a historical person to correctly identify itself according to modern categories. So why even bother? Why not simply allow the possibility that a person's nationality is determined by the criteria that suit the time period during which it lived. And does anyone seriously argue that the Archduchy of Austria was not part of Germany during the 18th century? PS: Someone may find it illuminating to read the discussion here. If the Mozart article himself states he is German (and Austrian), shouldn't the Germany article do the same for consistency's sake, until valid arguments are put forward that lead to both articles being changed? Blur4760 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is, that both concepts are equipollent: You can say Mozart is german due to Austria was a part of the german states in the historical context of Mozart. On the other hand you can see that Mozart is not a german due to Austria is seperated in the presence and seperated it's history in 1866. I think, I am misunderstood: I have not argumented for the last concept. May be there is no logic solution as well as only few arguments on both concepts. Geo-Loge 10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The article sees Today´s Germany as a successor state to the Holy Roman Empire, where Mozart is born. It is not inaccurate to place him here. A German TV-Show "The Greatest Germans" included Mozart, which, at the time, triggered the same controversy but was answered with the HRE argument. Lear 21 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[2]: "If Germany, my beloved fatherland, of whom you know I am proud, will not accept me, then must I, in the name of God, again make France or England richer by one capable German; — and to the shame of the German nation." Find me one quote by Mozart where he says he's Austrian. Lars T. 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the concept of the HRE for determining whether Mozart was Austrian or German doesn't make any sense. The HRE was not a national state, and the point in question is exactly what nationality Mozart had. He was a subject of the emperor of the HRE, but that doesn't turn him into a German, just because it would be silly to equate the HRE with "Germany" in any sense. The point is that there was no "Germany" in the 18th century, that is to say, no "Germany" in the modern sense. The German national state painfully evolved in the 19th century, and so did the concept of German national identity. One mustn't confuse a "modern" sense of nationality with the categories that applied in the 18th and earlier centuries. To determine what is meant by "German" when dealing with bygone centuries is notoriously difficult. In the 18th century most people whose mother tongue was German would consider themselves to be Germans in some vaguely defined way and in certain contexts, while in other contexts they would insist that they were Prussian, Bohemian, Austrian, Alsatian, Swiss (!) and even Danish (people living in the duchies Schleswig and Holstein that were ruled by the Danish king). A sense of "German-ness" usually arises when the individual is confronted with things French, English, Czech, Russian, Danish, Swedish etc., and it nearly always has to do with the language. So it is symptomatic that Mozart invokes the "German nation" and his "beloved fatherland" when in a context where he ponders about the options he has in terms of where in Europe he could make a living - France or England seem to be the most promising alternatives. It is probably true that Mozart did not have a very strong regional "Austrian" identity, since his father was from Augsburg. On the other hand his mother was (as far as I know) from Salzburg or thereabouts. The problem is aggravated by the fact that Habsburgian Austria wasn't a national state either. Even the archduchy Austria wouldn't produce a national identity in the modern sense. (Same thing with Luxemburg: it belonged most of the time to the HRE, then for a while to France, then to the Netherlands, while remaining a member of the German Union, which - like Austria - it left in 1866). - I believe it's safe to say that in the 18th and even during the larger part of the 19th century there was a sense of regional "Austrian" identity in what is contemporary Austria, but that the German-speaking inhabitants considered themselves to be German even after the German Reich was founded. Anton Bruckner, as Austrian as anybody can be, thought of himself in terms of a German composer, and decades later a certain Adolf Hitler wanted to become a great German painter. The "German consciousness" of Austrians of the late 19th and early 20th century had, of course, a lot to do with the ethnic conflicts within the Habsburg monarchy, especially with the clash with the Czechs. There was, after all, right after WW I a strong tendency to "reunite" with the German empire, and, although nowadays many Austrians don't like to be reminded of it, the "Anschluß" was an operation very different from the occupation of Czechoslovakia. It seems to me that the undoubtedly strong Austrian sense of national identity that we experience to-day is largely a product of WW II: to be German was suddenly no longer a terribly attractive idea, and by suddenly putting great emphasis on being Austrian and not German one was surprisingly successful in separating oneself from the darkest chapters of German (or central European) history. Suddenly Hitler was German, and Mozart - everybody's darling - was Austrian. Austrian Nazis had enjoyed it very much that Bruckner was considered to be a very German composer during the "Third Reich", and the very Viennese Schönberg and Mahler, the Jews, were studiously ignored, to say the least. After 1945 all of them suddenly became icons of Austrian cultural history. Anyway, to call Mozart a German composer just because he was born and spent most of his short life within the realm of the HRE doesn't make sense. Since Salzburg has always been part of the historical Austrian region and is now part of the national state Austria he should be called an Austrian composer (like, mutatis mutandis, Haydn and Bruckner). But in central Europe (and maybe also in other parts of the world) neither the historical nor the contemporary political borders can be the sole reason for counting a great personage of the past among the "great sons and daughters" of a nation. Some participant in this discussion suggested that one should use the present political map as the only valid criterion: that would turn Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottfried Herder into a Russian philosophers... even Russian chauvinists in Kaliningradskaya oblast would find that hilarious. Andreas Gryphius, the great Silesian baroque poet, would be Polish. Meister Erwin (von Steinbach), the main creator of the Strasbourg minster, would be a French architect. That is as silly as calling him a German just because medieval Straßburg belonged to the HRE. Ernst Reuter, the legendary post-war mayor of Berlin (and father of former Daimler-Benz-boss Edzard Reuter), would be Danish (he was born in the north of the old duchy of Schleswig, which part of Schleswig-Holstein now belongs to Denmark). And so on and on. Central European history is more intricate than that of, say, Spain or France, and it notoriously raises questions that cannot be answered in a plain and clear-cut manner. 141.91.129.3 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the quote presented by Lars T., I would prefer to see him as german. Mozart is one of the persons promoting the idea of a german nationality (defined by culture and science) years before 1848 or 1871. Please accept Germany as a set of german states (whether defined as a federation or confederation) in past as like as in present and please do not only accept German nation defined by modern political science and theories of states to estimate his nationality. Geo-Loge 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To everybody who keeps insisting that "Austria" didn't exist because it was a part of Germany at the time: "Germany" didn't exist at the time either! The Holy Roman Empire was a conglomeration of more or less self-governing states (e.g. Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony), most of whom happened to be populated by German speaking people (hence the "Deutscher Nation"). --dllu 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, dllu. But you know, there are some here who think they can "run" this page by imposing their own opinion on others. The opinions are divided over Mozart's nationality, as this talk page clearly shows. And as long as there is no consensus - I don't mind having a poll at all - I will continue to revert the claim that Mozart is a German, while sticking to the rules. Those who hate to see Mozart as an Austrian should maybe go over to Austria's country page, and delete the name of Mozart there as well? A typical case of German pettiness and "Rechthaberei"? Particularly in view of the great number of composers that the country in question claims as its own.

Nellov5 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to anyone who might need to hear it: the three-revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. Users who repeatedly revert may be blocked even if they do not technically exceed three within 24 hours. I urge all involved in this dispute to discuss rather than repeatedly reverting. Heimstern Läufer 02:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe someone can be considered German and Austrian at the same time? Isn't that the argument that I tried to make the whole time? That there was a time where people were both. Where does the need come from to modern make clear-cut distinctions where they don't fit? There is no need to "delete" Mozart from the Austria page if one admits the possibility that reality is a bit more complex than permissible for one's own simplicisstic system of categorising people. And I really don't understand where all the anger is coming from all of a sudden. As far as I can tell, after several discussions there, the Mozart article categorises him as German and Austrian, and does so for quite a time now. By the way, I think it is clear that Mozart was Austrian. However, I don't see that that precludes the possibility of him being German at the same time. Finally, I would even say that Mozart's "Germanness" is more evident than for example Kant's. Kant never set foot on German or HRE territory, nor was he a subject of any Reichsfürst (legally, he was only subject of the King of Prussia, who was Reichsfürst only under different title in personal union for his land inside the HRE). Why doesn't anyone go ahead and dispute the fact that he is German? Or why is Kafka considered to be Austrian? Wouldn't the same argumentation that renders Mozart an Austrian and nothing but render Kafka not an Austrian? Afterall, Cisleithania cannot be considered to be the same state that is modern Austria (or to use another wording, Modern Austria did not exist before WWI, just like Modern Germany did not exist during Mozart's lifetime), a legal point the Austrian government raised in trying to lower its reparation commitment after WWI. Yet it is generally agreed upon that Kafka was in one sense or another Austrian. Blur4760 03:11, 1 May 2007

(UTC)

Even the Federal Republic of Germany is conglomeration of self-governing states. It is a federation. So what was the Holy Roman Empire? There are many aspects of the Holy Roman Empire that are similar to the European Union. But: The Holy Roman Empire had a constitution and an identity. It had some institutions (Reichstag (institution), the Prince-elector, the Reichsarmatur army). It was a confederation. So please stop examining medieval political entities just by modern political science.
If the European Union will stop existing in 100 years then you still would remain a citizen of the European Union, although it has no identity today and more than ever if you personaly proclaim your citizenship of the Union! Geo-Loge 09:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, maybe YOU can contribute to this discussion too, instead of making threatening remarks? The fact remains that this is an unresolved issue, opinions are divided. So why make a statement about something that isn't unanimously accepted as the truth? Why not withdraw that statement until a concensus has been reached? Oh, but wait, we're dealing with a country here that isn't exactly known for its democratic traditions, how could I forget. It's probably more important to come up with a propaganda piece about a self-styled "model society" that has all the charm of a glossy presentation commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its websites. I totally agree with the poster further down in the "Emigration" section. At least, the beer is good and cheap in Germany!

(Nellov5 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)).

I have no intention of becoming embroiled in this dispute. I don't care about Mozart's nationality; I care about his music. My concern is that there is an edit war taking place here, and I became particularly concerned at seeing people say they would continue to revert as long as they weren't violating the rules. I have made no threatening remarks, I have simply stated policy and I ask that those here please abide by it. Since disucssion here doesn't seem to be making much headway, perhaps it would be worth some sort of dispute resolution, possibly an RFC on the article or a request for mediation? Heimstern Läufer 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As Blur, among others (including myself), pointed out, the concept of the HRE or the concept of Germany as legal successor to the HRE (which is in itself dubious) cannot be used to determine whether Mozart was German or Austrian. The Franche-Comté (around Besancon and Dole) belonged for quite a while to the HRE, too (as "Freigrafschaft Burgund"). I know of no famous personage of that period who was born and lived, say, in Besancon, but if I did, I would find it utterly ridiculous to call him German, unless his mother tongue was and sources would prove that he himself considered himself to be German. A fairly common term used to denote those inhabitants of the Habsburg Empire who spoke German (in contrast with Czech) is "Deutschösterreicher"). In my opinion Mozart belongs in this category, and so do Haydn and Kafka, unfortunately also Hitler. A well-known source for the cultural life in and around Vienna are the memoirs of the Viennese woman of letters Caroline Pichler. She always calls Mozart and Haydn German composers and notes that in their households there was remarkably little refinement of conversation and manners. In modern German encyclopedias Mozart ist usually called an Austrian composer, Kafka an Austrian writer, Kant a German philosopher. This practice is obviously logically inconsistent. In the case of Mozart the underlying reason probably is that modern Austria is the successor state of the part of the Habsburg empire where Mozart was born and lived. But the respective successor state for Kafka is the Czech republic, and in Kant's case northeastern Prussia never belonged to the HRE - as Blur correctly pointed out - and now belongs to Russia. So, if you apply the principle of successor state, one might categorize Mozart as Austrian, but one couldn't call Kafka Austrian and Kant German. Consistent would be to call Mozart Austrian, Kafka Bohemian and Kant Prussian. That would take their contemporary reality into account. This is the practice in many older German encyclopedias and dictionaries. Of course, it creates problems for international users who cannot be expected to know where Bohemia was and what its cultural context was. And this solution creates other problems when Bohemians of Czech extraction are concerned. To make things even more complicated: the playwright Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz (a friend of the young Goethe) was born in Livland, which was one of the three Russian provinces at the Baltic Sea in the 18th century. It was later divided into Estonia and Latvia. Lenz would be an Estonian writer if you follow the principle of present-day layout of the political map. He would be Russian if you follow the HRE-principle. But he thought himself to be German as much as Goethe, and, for all I know, he spoke neither Estonian nor Russian, but only German, French and some English. I am utterly convinced that you will never solve the problem of determining whether Mozart and others are German or not without creating new problems and inconsistencies in other cases. It seems to me a sound practice that in a history of German music you will find Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, Bruckner etc. even along with Swiss composers, while in a history of Austrian music you will find Haydn and Mozart, probably Beethoven, possibly Brahms, but not Bach and Händel, and in a history of Swiss music you will find only those composers who were actually born and lived in Switzerland. This practice makes good sense, and it pays respect to the fact that the larger cultural context of all these composers was determined by the German language and had very little to do with state boundaries.141.91.129.5 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mozart wasn't born in the Habsburg empire, he was born in Salzburg. Salzburg wasn't part of Austria during Mozart's lifetime. Blinder Seher 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion reminds me a lot of the question whether Pope Adrian VI was German, Dutch, or German and Dutch at the same time. I think that anonymous contributor 141.91.129.3 above (16:18, 19 April 2007) is summing up the issue best; the question of "German" nationality or ethnicity prior to the late 19th century really "cannot be answered in a plain and clear-cut manner"; Mozart was neither Austrian nor German in the modern sense, therefore it remains a difficult thing to list Mozart as a German (or Austrian) composer without further explanations. Gestumblindi 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results for Today's featured article & Happy Easter!

WikiCharts — Top 1000 (Out of 1.72 Million) ! Germany article in March : Views per day 11 032 (rank 112.)[3] Germany article in April so far : Views per day 23 143 (rank 38.) [4] Lear 21 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.226.66.70 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Section Infrastructure needs Expansion!

Please use Transport in Germany for new content. All modes of transportion should be mentioned. Lear 21 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transrapid in Shanghai?

Under the "Education" heading this is a picture of the Transrapid in Shanghai. Is there a legitimate reason for its existence, or should it be deleted? Britney-Boy 03:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Transrapid is genuinely produced and invented by several German firms and cooperations with German universities. Lear 21 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow revert war over EU flag

I'm requesting that those disagreeing over whether or not to include the EU flag in the infobox disuss things rather than continually reverting. I don't really care whether or not it's included, although I do think it's important to note that WP:FLAG, which is being cited as a reason for removal, is an essay, not policy or even a guideline. Heimstern Läufer 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The flag documents an official symbol used by all EU member states :[5]. It has almost a status comparable to the national flag. It is a vital part of the article and signalizes the degree of integration. Lear 21 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's nonsense. What flag did the German spectators wave at the World Cup? Just because a flag can legally be used by any citizen the same way as the national flag doesn't mean they have equal status. In Denmark, for instance, everyone is allowed to use the flags of the other Nordic countries (as well as the EU flag) without special permission. That doesn't mean anyone would ever hoist the EU flag (or the Norwegian or Swedish one) in their garden on their birthday.
A box indicating that Germany is a member of the EU should more than do the trick. --dllu 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The EU will have an official status in the constitution of the European Union but it is not an official symbol yet. Nevertheless it is used in the Bundestag and other institutions similary to the german flag. The World Cup argument is poor: Would Scottish fans wave the Union Flag if their team would play again Wales or England or anyone else? That is really nonsense. Geo-Loge 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No it's not. A flag is a symbol of identity, and the legal status of the EU flag really doesn't matter. The "Schwarz-Rot-Gold" is the symbol of the German nation; the EU flag isn't and for obvious reasons never can be. This is an article about the independent country Germany, not about a state in a European federation, because there is no such thing. --dllu 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
May I add my observation that for example even the articles about Canadian provinces do not contain the Maple Leaf flag or Red Ensign in the infobox? Nor does the Union Jack pop up in the articles about England or Scotland (except in a navigational template about the constituent nations of the UK). And I assume there would be a stronger reason to include the respective flags there, yet it is not done. Blur4760 12:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the flag it is completely unnecessary and see no reason why it should be included--Barryob Vigeur de dessus 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the flag are stated. Again, it is an official symbol used in national affairs. By the way, guess who waved the EU flag at the World Cup Final 2002 Brazil-Germany ? ME! and it was covered by CNN and BBC World. There are even EU flags in German football stadiums. Lear 21 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the argument for the inclusion consists in saying the EU flag is almost a national flag; however, a de jure national flag is not even used for subnational entities such as Canadian provinces or home nations (call it an argumentum a fortiori if you will). Blur4760 10:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last paragraph, comment RE "NEO NAZI"

Last paragraph states "Many Germans (formerly displaced persons, and NO NEO NAZIS!) still see These areas as German, and fight for there restitution."

As an outsider to Germany, this seems a little ambiguous and I was wondering if it would be possibly to go in more detail. As well the "NO NEO NAZIS!" remark seems a little emotional... seeing as it is in caps. Could it be re-stated in a manner more fitting of an encyclopedia? Normgibson 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, as well as the grammar and spelling in that section, I'm not sure if I should just get rid of the section, because that section was all done by the same person. I don't know if the rest is true. Can anyone with more knowledge in this area check that section over for truth and verifiability? --LuigiManiac 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The german flag and emblem are pictured as the old nazi ones, and have been for a while

I thought this was a semi-credible site, i guess not. 207.6.113.119 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was vandalism, and it has been fixed. It's unfortunately one thing wikipedia has to deal with from time to time. Jpp42 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emigration

Why is the emigration on the highest rate since end of WW II if the economy is the 3rd biggest inn the world? I can`t see any "problem" section, so, is everything ok over there or are there maybe some discussions about this (school concept, see UN) and that (unemployment)? Aren`t there any major problems in this cunttry or is everything just fine and all of the folks are fat and happy?

This whole article is just advertising. I wonder why its a "featured article". Let me guess it - Its just what it reads like: A media offensive from some gouvernment/ economy paid propaganda institute. P.juka 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Boo-hoo-hoo. Anyway, the biggest reason is unemployment. Lars T. 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Germans first of all have a disturbed self conception and are wailing at a high stage. In fact this part of the real existent problems, too. The article includes problems like unemployment, stagnation of wages in contrast to general economical recreation respectively growth and demographic problems. What more?: Maybe demographic implications on the social systems are missing. Geo-Loge 10:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the beer is cheap n good in germany. P.juka 14:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema

It should be mentioned that the film Nowhere in Africa (original title in German: Nirgendwo in Afrika) won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2002. Furthermore it would be nice to add the original title of the film The Lives of Others which is Das Leben der Anderen. -- 217.233.160.231 09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that the German film Die Blechtrommel (The Tin Drum) won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, too. See here: Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Anyway what I think is: If one is mentioned the other two should also be mentioned. -- 217.233.160.231 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism in Germany (series)

I just had the idea of a series of articles about tourism in Germany. There could be a series about the 16 states. I thought to include major cultural events/festivals, national parks, class-A sites, sports and recreation, cities, waters, etc. of each individual state. Perhaps here would be a good place to collect some ideas and thoughts about this idea. There sure is sooooo much to see in all the different parts of Germany that it could be hard to decide what to mention in those articles and what not. I would be willing to start the article about my home state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Likedeeler 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone talking about soccer?!?!?!?!?!?!? I think this is a very inportant part of Germany and their culture. Considering they hosted the FIFA world cup a year ago!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.242.126 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-08

It is called "football" in the article and is mentioned under Sports, with a reference to the main article Sport in Germany.--Boson 06:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anthem is wrong

I'm a german people and the anthem is wrong. The "Lied der Deutschen" was the Nazi anthem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.177.177.39 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The hymn is known by both names, but the original title is "Das Lied der Deutschen", as can be seen on this facsimile of the handwritten text by Hoffmann von Fallersleben — Nazi-Germany only used the first stanza (as well as the Horst-Wessel-Lied) as their Anthem, the FRG only uses the third stanza. And no, the first stanza is not called Lied der Deutschen, nor is the third called Deutschlandlied. Lars T. 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is confirmation from the German Ministry of the Interior:

Nationalhymne Das Deutschlandlied geht auf die liberale Nationalbewegung des 19. Jahrhunderts zurück. Den Text verfasste Heinrich Hoffmann, der seinen Namen mit dem Zusatz "von Fallersleben" versah, ein nationalliberaler Dichter, der 1842 wegen seiner Werke seine Professur in Preußen verlor. Das "Lied der Deutschen" schrieb er am 26. August 1841 bei einem Aufenthalt auf der damals britischen Insel Helgoland. . . . Die junge Bundesrepublik tat sich mit der Entscheidung über eine Nationalhymne schwer. Im Gegensatz zur Bundesflagge wurde im Grundgesetz hierzu keine Festlegung getroffen. Eine Regelung erfolgte erst 1952. Bundeskanzler Dr. Konrad Adenauer bat den Bundespräsidenten in einem Schreiben vom 29. April 1952, "das Hoffmann-Haydn´sche Lied als Nationalhymne anzuerkennen. Bei staatlichen Veranstaltungen soll die dritte Strophe gesungen werden." Prof. Dr. Theodor Heuss gab hierzu mit seinem Antwortschreiben vom 2. Mai 1952 seine Zustimmung. . . . Nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands erklärten Bundespräsident Dr. Richard von Weizsäcker und Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl in einem Briefwechsel vom August 1991 die dritte Strophe des Deutschlandlieds zur Nationalhymne.

So, strictly speaking, following the exchange of notes between the President and the Chancellor, the national anthem is actually the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied, and the rest of the song forms no part of the anthem (before that the whole song was the anthem, but only one verse was sung at official ceremonies).--Boson 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"Strictly speaking"? -- Calling it "Deutschlandlied" instead of "Lied der Deutschen" is the first mistake; calling this the anthem is just plainly wrong. It is not. The third stanza is for it own the anthem. And the first exchange of notes that defined this was 1952. --84.144.196.218 10:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be agreeing with me that the third stanza is the anthem (I wrote the national anthem is actually the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied ). As regards the name of the whole thing, you will note from my German government quotation that the German government calls it the Deutschlandlied. On their Web site they do refer to the original by Heinrich Hoffmann as "Lied der Deutschen" (in inverted commas), but throughout the text they refer to it as das Deutschlandlied. You can't get much more explicit than

Nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands erklärten Bundespräsident Dr. Richard von Weizsäcker und Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl in einem Briefwechsel vom August 1991 die dritte Strophe des Deutschlandlieds zur Nationalhymne.

So the official anthem is: Third stanza of the Deutschlandlied.--Boson 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You said it yourself: the third stanza of the "Lied der Deutschen" is now the text being sung to the national anthem, instead of the first one. The stanza itself doesn't have a name. --dllu 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Right; thanks for changing the title. It is not only about being sung; the Lied der Deutschen is not in any way the anthem; only the third stanza, named or not, is. For me the brackets don't work, they mislead. Instead it should be somehing like "Anthem - Third stanza of the "Lied der Deutschen"". --84.144.196.218 11:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if people click on the link they will get the explanation and can form their own opinion about the weirdness of this decision... --dllu 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hej. It's ok as it is, in the german WP it's not different. For me it would be much clearer at the spot if it was written differently, without the need to look up just on suspicion. No need to force someone to build up an opinion on historical details if he just want's to know what Germany's anthem is. May I ask why you think the decision is weird? --212.7.145.178 12:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Argueing about whether the German national anthem is called "Lied der Deutschen" or "Deutschlandlied" leads nowhere, because it is largely a matter of point-of-view. As has correctly been pointed out it is only the third stanza of the Hoffmann von Fallerslebens poem "Lied der Deutschen" that functions as national anthem (formerly it was the first stanza). Obviously, single stanzas of poems don't bear a title, so it the national anthem doesn't have a title. But it is a fact that in Germany it is commonly called either the "Deutschlandlied" or by its first words (musicologists call this an "incipit"), i. e. "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit". Or it is simply called "die Nationalhymne" (=national anthem). Nobody seriously calls the song by the title that the poet gave it. Such changes in the titles of popular songs and even of dramas and other literary works are by no means uncommon. The "Marseillaise" was never given that title by its author, and most plays by Shakespeare have long titles that differ greatly from how we call them. But it would be silly to call the "Marseillaise" by any other title, or try to introduce into common usage the actual titles of the Shakespeare plays. By the same token it would be silly to call the German national anthem "Lied der Deutschen". Only in a context where you actually speak about Fallersleben's complete poem it would be correct and even necessary to use the long title. I think the following statement would be acceptable: "The German national anthem is commonly called "(das)Deutschlandlied"; it is the third stanza of August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben's poem "Lied der Deutschen". Even in the Fallersleben-article in a widely used German literary dictionary (Gero von Wilpert, Lexikon der Weltliteratur) it reads "Deutschlandlied". Many German regions (states, "Länder") have their own hymns; they are hardly ever referred to by the title of the original poem but bear titles which are formed after the same pattern as "Deutschlandlied": Frankenlied, Ostpreußenlied, Schleswig-Holstein-Lied.141.91.129.5 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" -Union and Justice and Freedom

I think that you should add an english translation. In every other article concerning a nation, you have the Motto both in english and in the national language. I can't see why it should be different in the case of germany.

Since this version of Wikipedia specialized in conveying information through the English language, yes-a translation should be added. Signaturebrendel 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I inserted it. --Abe Lincoln 18:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Einigkeit" bedeutet auf Englisch nicht "Union" sondern unity. "Union" zu deutsch ist Verein. Sca 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Civil War?

Why is there nothing in the article on the Spanish Civil War in this article? I'd put some in, however my knowledge towards that event aren't really that great. Can someone maybe add a little information on it what they get the chance?

because this article was made by germanophiles IMHO. Cliché Online 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. maybe because this article has nothing to do with Spain? I think there is a reason that the article is called "Germany"? Maybe you should think about that.

Well, the German Luftwaffe aided Franco in several bombing raids, basically training for WW2. Lars T. 07:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Luftwaffe aided Franco. Maybe someone can add something. But there are a lot of more bad things happend in history (not only with germany), and you cannot write all down in the articles? Or can we? hm...lets start. :)

[edit] Date of Entry into European Union wrong

I think it is wrong to say that Germany joined the European Union in 1957, since the EU didn't exist then. Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg were the founder states of the European Economic Community (Rome treaties of 1957, implemented 1958), which was quite different from the EU in that it was by no means anything like a political Union but little more than a trade zone. Of course, the EEC is the root of the EU, but nevertheless: writing that Germany joined the EU in 1957 creates the definitely wrong impression that something like the EU existed back then. The entry should be altered.141.91.129.5 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign relations

why is half of this section dedicated to the US-germany relationship and there is not so much about the euro nations, nothing about the east and asia for example? i think the world doesn't revolve around the US. Cliché Online 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right the world doesn't revolve armound the US. MAybe they should talk about how Germany is the leader in the EU. Also, maybe they should talk about why the won't allow some of the balkan nations to join the EU. Peace Out!:)

[edit] Culture

Mozart was Austrian, not German. This is a glaring error.

This has already been discussed on this page at length. Have a look at the section 'Is Mozart "German" ?' Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
All Austrians during Mozart's time (and until very recently) were recognised by themselves and by others as Germans. Any arguments against that are anachronisms. Miskin 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)