Talk:Germany/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Meaning of the German Colors?

We all know the meaning of the American flag and what the stars and bars represent. But does Germanys flag have a meaning..... do the colors symbolize anything. If anyone knows, please tell me.

There are lots of different explanations, ranging from uniform colors (black with red revers and gold buttons) to coloring of documents (black with golden ornaments where red was used as carrying color for gold) to historical sources to the claim "from dark night through bloody battle to golden freedom". The German Wikipedia has an article about this de:Schwarz-Rot-Gold (automated translation to English: [1]) -- Chrysalis 03:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know the colors come from the uniform the students wore during the wartburg revolt... Thats what the article says, too. No idea if it is right.

The Wartburg colors you refer to come from the uniform buttons of the Lützowsche Freikorps, a unit that fought in the wars against Napoleon and featured prominently in the 1813 campaign, which constituted the liberation myth that lay at the bottom of 19th-century German nationalism. But the colors ultimately come from the Imperial coat of arms (of the [Holy] Roman Empire), which is more or less identical to the current German coat of arms; this may in turn date back to Byzantinian antecedents. Christian Rödel

Naming

I noticed the article on England has a section on nomenclature, but on quick scan of this article, I couldn't find anything. Why is the English name "Germany" while the German name is "Deutschland"? Where did the term "Germany" originate from? According to Wiktionary, Frisian and Dutch stick to a spelling similar to "Deutschland", while most other countries have forms similar to "Germany". I'm just wondering why the difference.

User:Ar57 10:00, 4 July 2005


Germany comes from Germania, the Romans' name for those parts of Europe that became today's Germany. Actually, a small part on the west side was, together with parts of Belgium, the Roman province of Germania. The German name "Deutschland" comes from the medieval word theodiscus - the language spoken by the average people that didn't speak Latin. This became deutsch in German, and also generated the Italian word tedeschi - Germans. In French (and similarly in other Latin languages like Spanish or Portuguese) the word for Germany is Allemagne, which comes from the ancient Germanic tribe called Alemanni by the Romans. Allemanni actually comes from early germanyic languages and means All men - meaning that the tribe in question was probably a mixture of different tribes that had merged. Luis rib 4 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very helpful, and should be added to the article. So looks like there are 3 different names in the various languages for it too, interesting. --Ar57 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
Even 4 names... I think the Finnish word for Germany is something like "Saxa" or "Saksa" (comes from "Saxony"). (user 172.179.220.37)
The Polish and Czech are Niemcy and Německo, is that somehow from "Alemanni"? Saintswithin 22:03, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
No. In archaic slavic languages it means "the dumb ones". Space Cadet 22:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
For a moment there I understood a different meaning of "dumb" - you mean not "stupid" but "mute", as they didn't understand the Slavic languages and didn't answer, so people thought they couldn't talk properly, right? (I found an article on it here.) Saintswithin 10:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Of course. Space Cadet 14:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ger is an old German word for a spear. So Germannen means Spearmen or Men with Spears. Some historians think that this was the name of some germanic tribe (or a name for another germanic tribe) and that it entered latin this way.

It's covwerd in German_language#Names_of_the_German_language_in_other_languages. -83.129.48.138 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The different names in different languages usually depend on the tribe those countries had their first contact with. For the French or Romans this were the Allemans in south-west Germany while the nordic countries had their first contact with the angle saxons. It is also an interesting fact that the name "Deutschland" (the German name for Germany) means "country of the German language". Because Germany consisted of so many tribes and has much local variety the high german language was the only thing people had in common, so they started definating their nation over their language. ("Deutsch" = German)

Actually the name "Deutschland" is a fairly recent one, as at least until the Thirty Years' War the lands that make up Germany were part of a "Reich" that consisted of many nations or smaller states. As far as I am aware the term "Deutschland" wasn't much used before the 18th or 19th century. You are correct though that the concept behind the name largely derives from the common language. --213.54.218.200 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
In fact, "Germany" and associated names are originally Celtic (the germani did not have a common name for themselves before Charlemagne). "Deutsch" comes from "thiud" (an originally germanic word) which means "folk", "people". -- Sarazyn from the german Wikipedia
And also "deutsch" gained the meaning "of the same (german) language" during the middle ages, wich leads to what was said earlier. It should also be noted, that germans make a distinction between "Germanen" and "Deutsche". The first one is used for all german tribes and/or their decendants(i.e. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, etc.), while the second one describes what the English call Germany.

Comment: Where the hell do I comment amongst all that lot?

This discussion is way too long and too complicated to comment on properly without spending a week on it. But I will try. You seem to start with a war over what should be in the section on WW2. A great deal of discussion about hollocausts and arguments over whose got a bigger death toll. This seems to me missing the point. You should have a concise list of events, not a roll of honourable dead. The important key points, with none left out. The present version is too short. You have managed to leave out the allied western invasion of Europe! It just reads that russia invaded Germany, captured berlin and that was that! Glad to see the death toll about the Battle of Britain was played down. Churchill's famous quote about 'so much owed by so many to so FEW'? Strategically important and dramatic, but oh so easy a war compared to what was happening to the Russians. But that would seem to have been Britains only contribution. And presumably the Americans did nothing. Front in Africa, far east? Strategically all these were more important than the sheer numbers slaughtered.

Killing several million of his own citizens probably on balance hindered the German war effort, but was not a decisive event. But if he had managed to kill just a few thousand allied pilots he could have won. Maybe even just a few hundred. Then we would all be writing wikis about the advantages of arian society. Frankly, if he had been a better general and less a raving nutter, he might have won. But then, had he not been a raver, maybe he would never have siezed power. Slaughtering his own population might not have been a good strategy to optimise his workforce, but it did allow him to come to power and motivate the majority. So on balance, arguably a good strategy, not a bad one. Shame he lost, but then he nearly did not. Are there any military strategists here?Sandpiper 4 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

With all due respect, your points are irrelevant for the article about Germany. Things like the "allied invasion of Europe" can be adressed in a WWII Military History artcile, but has certainly no room in a short article about modern German history, don't you think? --Dwightman 18:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Felix Klein

I've added Felix Klein to the list of mathematicians. Stefan Udrea 11:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And then you might as well add Johann Friedrich Pfaff. Thus the hammer spake gangsta

National animal

[moved by Markus Schmaus]

Does anyone know exactly what the national Animal of Germany is? My German teacher (a proper Germanophile) says that the national animal is actually the Bear, but because Russia already has it as its national emblem, the black eagle is generally used more as the national symbol.

I can't imagine that the bear is the German national animal. If there is any official national animal it is most probably the eagle, but I couldn't find a source for this. Markus Schmaus 18:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe he confused the German coat of arms with Berlin's coat of arms? There is plenty of information on the historic use of the eagle in this article: Federal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Germany. 130.123.225.69


What about the eagle? It features on the German 1 and 2 euro coins, as well as inside the German Parliament (as a huge sculpture behind the Chairman). The bear seems to be a specific Berlin symbol, not a German one. Luis rib 18:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The Eagle can be considered the German national animal. The eagle is displayed on the German coat of arms and official seals. --Dwightman 18:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean with National animal? There is neither an official nor an unofficial national animal in Germany (and I don't think there are a lot of countries with national animals, anyway). Neither does Germany have a national plant nor a national insect or a national fossil, or the like. The eagle is on the coat-of-arms, but this does not make it the national animal.--Mevsfotw 08:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Think of the cock, bear, dragon, bulldog (haha, even chihuahua), but I suppose you're right, it is relatively rare. --Dpr 04:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
National Animal, if at all, the eagle. National plant (sort of) would be the oak. Officially, there is neither of course, but in general this would be what you would get if you asked "what animal or plant do you associate with Germany?"
There is no "national animal" like in the USA, the eagle can be considered to be a national symbol, though. The eagle goes back to Karl the Great and can be found in all periods of German history. The bear as symbol for Berlin comes from the name of the city. "Ber" has the same pronounciation as the german word for bear, "Bär". As far as I know the city's name was also written Bärlin in some middle age texts and maps, but I'm not certain.

--This use of the bear is known as/similar to canting arms. --Dpr 04:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC) I think, what he asks is, which is the "flag animal". The Eagle has always been part of the German coat of arms. It dates back to the roman eagle, because the holy roman empire saw themselves in succesion of the romans. So, that would be the "national animal".LordofHavoc 10:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

-Yeah, I think he probably assumed that the "national animal" was the bear, seeing as the eagle is a bird, but apparently the national bird of Germany is the white stork. The bear is the symbol of Berlin, you're right, I think that's what he got confused with, because I've always known/thought the national symbol to be the eagle


As stated before, there is no German national animal or bird. --Abe Lincoln 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


--I believe Germany doesn't have any actual national animal. If you search for "National Animal" in Google, one of the links takes to you a list on this same website(wikipedia). Germany and a lot of other places aren't listed. I think its because not many places actually have official national animals at all. I'll ask my German teacher about it. He has a Doctorate in German. I'll edit this after I ask him.

Forget it

Forget it that the Holocaust shall be deleted from this article again. I will prove that there are many minor details in this article which can be deleted, before the largest genocide in world history will be erased. By the way the article omits the German genocides in Africa. I propose we include them gidonb 23:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jew, why don't you go add the oppression and mass murder of Palestinians into the Israel article?
Since when is "The" Holocaust the "largest genocide in world history"? This is non-sense. Greater genocides occured during the reigns of Sargon the Great, Justinian of Byzantium, Constantine, and, in modern history, Josef Stalin, Mao Tsedong, and Pol Pot... Calling the Holocaust "the largest genocide in world history" might obscure public attention from the many other "Holocausts" that have occured in world history. It is a distortion of reality, regardless of the intent. And I'm Jewish for the record.
~ Your Holocaust is not deleted, just a further sentence for it. Not that this event is irrelevant - I don't care how it is described if it doesn't violate the NPOV, but the amount of description must not violate the policy either. Summarise!
Of all the two sources which gave a summary of the History of Germany, neither spend so much writing as you did on the Third Reich. One of these was a history book, the other a book of the Duden. Look at the periods of time, or is it your nature, for example, to write 99% on one year of a man, when in reality your job is to describe his entire life? This confirms my assumption that writing even further on it, like you did, makes the article biased, maybe your aim but you could also be pretty inexperienced ... at least inexperienced enough to wrongly denounce my edit as "vandalism". Don't you know what vandalism in Wikipedia is?NightBeAsT 23:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I did not write much on the Third Reich. I actually shortened the chapter along with the rest of the article and wrote on present-day's issues. I do take *all* the blame for making sure that the holocaust was for the first time (stably) included in German history (it just got deleted before and those who wanted to include it were called POV-pushers by "Maria" from "Southern-Italy"). I do believe that these are extremely important years in Germany's history for Germany made a huge impact through its warfare and its genocides during the Third Reich on global history then and ever since, because of the actions of Nazi Germany. The atrocities most definitely also changed Germany. gidonb 00:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but be sure to include how the "Holocaust" issue is adressed by post war generations. --Dwightman 06:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think that most members of the post war generations address the holocaust as good as they can. It is not an easy issue for anyone. Some of my roots go back to Jever, Germany, yet I have no family left there. I refuse, however, to draw any conclusions on today's Germans by one or more negative characters with whom I had trouble on this page. I am glad to see that Germany has tremendously improved its ways since this darkest era in its history. The era should not be concealed, but the new generations of Germany should only be judged on their own merits. gidonb 06:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Why does it matter if you had ancestors in Germany? Jews never mixed with Germans in Germany, they never even tried to assimilate.
That is simply an out-and-out lie. German Jews were deeply integrated into German society after around 1850. Around 100,000 German Jews fought in the German Army in WWI, for example. Jews were represented at every level of German society. This seems to trouble you, judging from your contributions, but it is the historical truth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
~ If you have decreased the lenght of all sections, it doesn't matter at all here. I'm not talking about absolute lenght, but relative lenght. The proportion is the key word. Also, it doesn't matter if you've prevented the Holocaust from being excluded because I simply haven't removed it, just an additional sentence to put a stop to this certainly never-ending lenthening of this paragraph. This is mainly because of the fact that many person's knowledge of the History of Germany starts and ends with the Third Reich. There is an interesting article on it:[2].So well-known doesn't necessarily make the Third Reich more notable. On the contrary, it makes it less informative because it is widely known already. Whether or not the Third Reich influenced the rest of the world particularly heavily should not be mirrored by the History of Germany. It is mirrored already by the history of almost every other country and this is where it should be mirrored, or should we add a paragraph each for every way Germany influenced other countries? This would also force us, for instance, to enlarge the section on World War 1 extremely. I wouldn't say that the impact on Germany should play a role. To you the impact must be that of the current generation or else I would say that the middle ages had a much bigger effect on Germany because their remnants like castles or churches or religion influenced hundreds of years of German history, while the Third Reich influenced only about seventy years and for example had no effect at all on the middle ages. But about what influence are we talking? If Germany had won the First World War for example, history would have developed totally differently. If Wilhelm II. hadn't become Emperor, they wouldn't probably have been the World War. If the 1848 Revolution had succeeded, what would have happened to Wilhelm II? Every part of history is based on another. This is one reason why my former history teacher said she thinks the Weimar Republic is more interesting to her: it contains the cause of the Third Reich, which is then the effect. Now, to come back to the impact on the current generation, I wouldn't say the Third Reich had such an enormous effect. I don't believe the Third Reich has had a larger impact on today's Germany than events like student movements in the 19th century or the rise of socialism because for example I'm just not reminded very much of the Third Reich when I hear the national anthem, see the national flag, the motto or the form of government, you see? The generation following the Third Reich was more influenced because they could make use the event against their parents as part of the typical generation gap. The generations after that usually feel without blame in the existence of the Third Reich, but since the dark Third Reich is historically not long over, there is often a feeling of having a duty to prevent anything like that in future, maybe not unlike Japan's postwar pacifism because it was morally a total defeat. Yet, of course, the current generation is much more influenced by more current events. For example if you want to buy something, you don't think of WW2, but rather of the Euro, when there will be elections soon, you rather think of the current politics too and when I watched de:Rhein in Flammen yesterday, the Reichstag's fire didn't come to my mind either. I'm not sitting in front of an enigma by the way, but a computer. In terms of history the current generations are all mainly affected by the third Industrial Revolution and to a much, much, much lesser extent by the third Reich. So basically if you want to go for impact on the current generations, the history section would exclusively focus on the rest of the 20th century and all of the 21th century until today. So all in all I've come to the conclusion that the amount of allocation of text for each section should mainly be determined by the amount of age, not perceived impact on the current generation. NightBeAsT 11:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Democracy?

Currently it says the form of government is "Federal Republic", whereas the United States page says "Democratic Federal Republic". Germany is hardly any less of a democracy than the USA. Either the US page or this one should be changed.

the form of government is a selfgiven by the respective governments and are not objective. Germany is a "Democratic-Parliamentary Federal And Constitutional State", USA is ostensible a "Praesidial Federal Republic". in a critical view the form in the USA is a plutocratic, Hegel-based Federal Republic represented by the president.
Which is sort of funny, since many Americans insist that "the US is a Republic, not a Democracy". Lars T. 12:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Undue" acting of the police

The general claim that police act "undue" (and, thus, illegal) towards migrants, which is often inserted here by means of a revert, is neither fair nor right. This even more, since a large percentage of the German population actually have a migration background. I understand that, in some circles, it is fashionable to claim that the law enforcement in a broader sense (this including courts etc.) are racist, right-wing etc. Such general claims are as unqualified as statements that the south of the US are governed by the Ku Klux Clan. Anyone who states general "undue" police behaviour should please quote sources and also consider their quality, if any of such sources can be brought at all.

Wenn Sie Englisch nicht gut lesen können, kann ich auch in Deutsch schreiben.
First, I don't see how, in comparison to other countries, that Germany has always been a country of much immigration. The United States, Canada, and Australia are countries that have consistently had high immigration. If we are going to say that Germany is a land of considerable immigration, then we pretty much have to say that every country is a land of considerable immigration. I ask you for a source on this point.
"Undue" does not mean illegal. I regard some elements of the US Patriot Act as "undue", however they are completely legal currently. However I will correct that statement.
As for your other edits, I believe we agree on all points, however I feel that my version covers all of the major points while being 50% shorter. It has already been noted in the article that right wing violence is mostly in the old DDR. Lines like "this issue is being intensively discussed in the general public" are unnecessary. An item in "Social Issues" is obviously being intensively discussed in the general public; otherwise it wouldn't be there. DirectorStratton 14:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, your personal remark on the language is not acceptable; by the way, your German is wrong (you should have written "können" instead of the first "kann"). You might be confused by British English.
Second, if you ask for a source and understand some German, I would like to refer you to [3]. You can see from the document, that, by the end of 2003, 8.3 % of the population in Germany did not possess German nationality - although nationality laws are generous in comparison. You can also see from the document that, from 1993 to 2003, foreign population had increased by 838,973 persons. Bearing in mind that in total about 82 million persons live in Germany, the increase is "considerable". You might also like to add the 1,151,371 persons who got naturalized between 1995 and 2003.
Third, I would be interested in any proof of your allegation that migrants are - generally - subject to "undue" police acting in Germany. I consider this not to be neutral. Neutrality would mean that "some voices" (who?) raise this allegation, however, you might find enough people who do not share your opinion, which cannot be delivered as a fact to the general public. At least, your text version (which perfectly suits the stereotype of the Nazi-type racist police officer of those whose knowledge on Germany is only based on WW II movies) draws a completely wrong picture of a whole country. So, please try to edit the text in a manner which is free of personal opinion.
Fourth, police officers in all democratic countries in the world are bound to the principle of proportionality. If the act in a disproportionate manner, they act illegally. Thus, "undue" police behaviour is illegal. And I wonder why you regard repeated identity checks by police as "undue". I think that in all countries of the world police may check identity if reasons as specified by law are given.
Zuerst, I was only trying to be helpful. Your sentence structure reminded me a bit of German writers, we get a lot of strongly opinionated Germans editing this article from anon IPs, and your IP registered in the Netherlands. Thus my comment was certainly acceptable, and was not intended to be insulting.
I'm certainly aware of German demographics, but all of the immigration cited in your figures is post-WWII data, which is not enough to make a blanket statement that Germany has always been a land of immigration. This article covers the entity of Germany, not just the Bundesrepublik.
Police officers are not bound to a principle of proportionality. They investigate all suspicious behavior. In many developed (and undeveloped) countries, foreigners and/or minorities are often considered generally suspicious (what is sometimes called in the US "Driving While Black"). However, in some situations (see foreigners living in Japan), the crime rate of such groups (immigrants to Japan) are not greater than the natives, but the police have a mandate to investigate suspicious behavior and if they consider all foreigners suspicious enough to request identification than that is legal. However if you're the person getting asked to show your ID to every policeman you meet, while the average local has been asked for ID zero times in their life, you would probably consider this to be "undue", but may very well be legal as the police are charged to ask anyone suspicious for identification. This is of course all rather subtle, but certainly important. See racial profiling.
Returning to the issue at hand, the blurb on undue police searches was actually present in this article since before I actively watched it. I admit that I am not tuned well enough to German news to hear about specifics, but based on everything else I have seen around the world, it seemed almost certain to be true. You charge me with writing personal opinion, but then fail to provide any evidence of your own, other than your desire to eliminate some German stereotype. I am hoping to find some sources in the future but for the time being I am too busy and am willing to let this pass for now.
I'm glad that you have chosen to work constructively on the article rather than just revert back to your own version. Please continue with your contributions, and please consider registering. DirectorStratton 06:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Germany is a country with lots of migration. After WW2 millions of displaced Germans moved. Since WW2 about 20 million people have migrated into Germany, and about the same number have left the country. Does anyone remember the late eighties when there were several hundred thousand people coming to Germany each year?


Immigrants in Germany (especially those from Muslim and African countries) face undue police inquiries (such as repeat targeted requests for identification) ... has been changed to ... [immigrants] may be subject to security-related police inquiries ... IMHO even the improved version still needs some proof, as it still suggests that immigrants are questioned more often than natives (otherwise why mention the questioning in relation to immigrants at all?). It may also give the impression that foreigners are questioned more often in Germany than in other countries, if this sentence does not appear in articles on other countries. Are there any statistics to support this controversial idea? Saint|swithin 09:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what this discussion is about. I lived in Germany most of my life but never experienced any undue police behaviour, nor have I ever heard from any of my friends with Turkish, African or Arab background that they were treated unduely by police. However, what I experienced when I moved to another country and worked abroad in both Europe and the US (as I still do today), was that there are still so many undue comments and preconceptions about my former home country that it's almost unbearable. Some of that - and very justly so - might be rooted in the holocaust, which obviously cannot and should never be forgotten. A great deal, however, seems to have to do with the fact that the proud history of some other grand nations is based on their victorious achievements in WWII. Then, of course, showing these "ugly German" movies on national television each year (as is commonly done in the Netherlands, England or the US) doesn't help. This all certainly contributed to the distorted vision above. To put it all in a nutshell: don't talk about it, if you didn't have the chance to look at it from all angles. Life's never that black and white... and by the way: my experience is that my former home country has become a real home to many immigrants after WWII. Integration, in that sense, worked much better than in France, the Netherlands or Belgium... as recent events should have shown. Today, undue behaviour of politicians in many Western contries worries me much more than alledgedly undue behaviour of German police... oh... and having to carry a legal piece of identification each day of your life doesn't kill you or restrict your civil rights... believe me... I'm doing that for years...

Post war population transfer

The expelled aren't counted only from those regions that belonged to German pre 1939, they are counted also from colonists settled in areas conqured after 1939 by Nazi regime. The number of 2milion of dead isn't confirmed.It actually is the number of people who didn't register.Some German historians claim the number of dead is much lower (500.000).Similiar counts in other regions (Yugoslavia) after vertification have halfed the number. Other regions-Poland and Chechoslovakia weren't the only places Germans were expelled from. Saying that the people means killed people isn't right, since we don't know if they have been killed, some of them likely fell to disease and famine that plagued postwar Europe.--Molobo 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rüdiger Overmans Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg.

The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.

These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified.


In view of this, if the current version will be kept without changes and continues to claim POV(such as that the 2 milion were killed (without any evidence) a NPOV tag will be in need.--Molobo 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, by naming "killed" to "lose their life" (euphemism), you'll help to make the article more neutral. Funny it didn't work on Anti-Polonism or any other article you, your banned friend Witkacy, or Space Cadet (who called Chris a nazi) touched. There are really reasons why Shauri titled you anti-German ultranationalists.NightBeAsT 23:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Killed means deliberate action.We don't know if they were killed or died to causes of hunger or famine. As to Shauri-yes she called me that after I added info on SS war crimes.If that makes me ultranationalist then be it.--Molobo 23:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I called you that for posting false information on the subject. As if there wasn't enough true info on the many SS warcrimes... there is no need to make fantastic fabrications like your claim of blaming the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend of the Malmedy massacre, when in fact it was commited by members of the 1th SS Panzergrenadier Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler; or the completely false statement that Kurt Meyer's liberation "stirred enourmous outrage among the public" [4]. But it looks like simply pointing out your mistakes is enough to be labelled a "right wing propagandist", like you did to a respected and serious editor like Ansbachdragoner. Do some reading before posting - it'll help your credibility. Shauri 13:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
True, we should use the same word which was used for killing Jews deliberately and illegally: to "systematically murder" and that also word also included Jews (because the nazis too had Jews die of not giving them food or water). Whatever you try to propagate and cover with euphemisms: before you cannot come up with totally reliable sources and manage to convince most people who care here, I'll oppose your edits because I know your edits.Night-night.NightBeAsT 23:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Jews were starving due to deliberate policies.That is killing.So your argument is flawed.Untill you provide evidence that 2 milion Germans were killed on purpouse that is POV.Which I will put in the article.The term "an undetermined number lost their lives" is more correct--Molobo 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

German provinces

Bizzare ultranationalism.I don't think Hungary or Yugoslavia were German provinces.Not to mention that the population transfer wasn't limited to territories that Germany possesed before 1939, or that were part of it.--Molobo 23:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


"The war resulted in the death of some 7 million Germans, large territorial losses and the expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from former German provinces like Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania, as well as from Bohemia and Moravia, in which more than 2 million German civilians, mostly women and children, were killed."

It's my understanding that Hungary and Yugoslavia are not mentioned here as "former German provinces". Believe it or not, the world existed prior to 1939. Feldmarschall 23:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Well you are aware that these aren't the only places Germans were transfered from to Germany ? Also saying that they were transfered from former German provinces is incorrect, since many were colonists settled in Poland after 1939.So the sentence is very misinforming and lacks some info on other regions.--Molobo 00:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC

More 1939 references; you just don't get it, do you? "Also saying that they were transfered [sic] from former German provinces is incorrect..." it is? Feldmarschall 01:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Germans were transfered from territories that went beyond the borders of Germany in 1939, including Hungary, Yugoslavia.A number of them were colonists settled after 1939.What is your problem with that fact ?--Molobo 01:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No shit? Feldmarschall 01:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you aren't interested in discussion or accurate version of the article. --Molobo 01:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "that fact", and I've never sought make comment on Yugoslavia or Hungary. Did you miss that? Feldmarschall 02:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Good then.I will prepare a more accurate version then.The current one is wrong.--Molobo 02:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's easy to see why Russians and Germans hated Poles.

More info on WW1?

I really don´t want to get involved in all this childish bickering, but do you think that one sentence is really enough to cover the first world war?? IsarSteve 13:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

WTF does this have to do with post WW2 population transfers and territorial losses? Feldmarschall 17:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Isar, the entire history section seems to me to have this problem. Before the 19th century, the section summarises decades and also some centuries with an extremely small number of words - for example the Thirty Years War, an extremely long war compared to WW1 or 2 and I think it was also the most devasting war for the German population (not in absolute but in relative numbers (deaths/total-number-of-people)).NightBeAsT 15:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
that´s a good point but I still think that WW2 then after that WW1 have more relevance to how and why Germany is what it is today than the thity years war does..IsarSteve 12:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to discuss some paragraphs above. Yet I'm not fully convinced by that comment but it sounds very logical and summarises my point of view and would explain the summaries of the history of Germany by the Duden and some more unknown encyclopeadia of world history. I've always excelled in history but that certainly doesn't make me a historian. So, well, I don't know. Is there maybe a good site on Wikipedia explaining how history sections should be structured?NightBeAsT 18:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Bert Rürup

The economy section seems questionable as to NPOV. Blaming reunification is certainly one explanation given by some sections of the body politic. It is to be contrasted by those who argue that the economy had structural problems (high business costs,high taxes and a very generous welfare state coupled with a falling birthrate.(since the 1960s)Alci12

Dispute over German Provinces and number of Germans expelled

Since the section is constantly reverted I added POV tag.Germans weren't transfered solely from "German Provinces".They were also transfered also from territories of Soviet Union, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Poland that weren't German provinces.Furthermore Germans who were part of settlement made by Nazi authorities or moved into occupied territories after 1939 are counted also as expelled.The current formulation "from German provinces" is misleading.I propose to use simple "The war resulted in the death of some seven million Germans, large territorial losses and the expulsion of Germans" with the link to the relevant article, where the process of population transfer is fully explained.The wording "German provinces" either implies that Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia were all German provinces(and that would be too absurd) or ignores Germans moved from other regions besides those belonging to Germany prior 1939.--Molobo 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Agrreed and done. -83.129.6.207 02:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I also removed your POV-tag, which seems to have be added to the wrong section. I hope this was OK. -83.129.6.207 02:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you.--Molobo 17:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(The following discussion and the its following remark were deleted by Molobo.--NightBeAsT 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC))

Personall attacks can be deleted at will NB.--Molobo 16:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Refactor what you consider to be personal attacks, Mo. And you should not delete comments of wikipaedians that you're engaged in a dispute over because it seems your definition of personal attacks is 'criticism leveled at you'. If you like, you can continue this discussion on my talk page or on yours if you stop deleting criticism too.NightBeAsT 17:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Since NB adressed me (as User:83.129.6.207). I will try to have a look at both german an polish nationalist, but it takes probably more time than I have. -guety is talking english bad 01:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for new article Anti-German sentiment

With some hesitation I propose to start a new article Anti-German sentiment, following the example of Anti-American sentiment and Anti-French sentiment. This is a notable subject whether you like it or not so it must be represented in Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that this sensitive subject will not degenerate into edit wars and POV pushing battles. Andries 11:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good idea to "air" all the justified reasons for Anti-German sentiment, also giving the opportunity to show off all the prejudices for what they are... In light of the Anti-American Sentiment and Anti-French sentiment articles, just one thing seems to be missing, an article on Anti-British Sentiment which of course also exists!! IsarSteve 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey why don't we make an article on why Jews shouldn't be in Israel and how Palestine belongs to Muslims? Oh wait, your a Jew and you would never do that.
There is already such an article i.e. Anti-Zionism. Andries 18:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

New Chancellor

With Germany having elected a new Chancellor and with a new Grand Coalition being recently formed, I think it would be of great benefit for the politics section of this article to recieve a revise. I realise the election was recent but it makes no mention of who the Chancellor is or what they do despite being the head of government.

On that matter, little is mentioned about how the government operates at all. Although the different areas are summarised, virtually nothing is mentioned on how domestic policy is implemented, how parliment is elected, who does what and other important aspects of any political system. - Canderra

The section really does all it is supposed to do in summarising the key information. It does include a link to the main article for interested readers. Many nations' pages don't mention the names of important figures (it would just be repeating information at the top of the page). As far as I'm aware, Merkel hasn't yet done anything that would warrant a revision of the section. Feldmarschall 10:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Germany has not yet elected a new chancelor. Germany has elected a new federal parliament, which, in turn, will (very likely) elect a new chancelor. I agree with many of your sentiments - it might be a good idea to rewrite it (with the best time probably being after Merkel is electet (if she is)). --Stephan Schulz 10:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please check this

Please check this quote allegedly said by Churchill: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaliningrad_Oblast&diff=26377985&oldid=26375207 , if it is real. One user, who does quite nationalist statements and reverts (and calling NPOV to be nationalism and russophobia), keeps adding it to Kaliningrad Oblast article. The only refferance I was able to found is in Russian and the one he gave; if it would be a real quote it would probably be available on more places online; as well, Churchill, unlike Roosevelt, seemed to be less supportive for partitioning of East Prussia... Furthermore, do we really need quotes in articles?.. Knyaz 09:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

tourism

What about sights ? I could translate the section from the german page, if that helps. 16 January 2006

The article is missing something - Political system

Where is the information about the political system and structure of government in the Federal Republic - was it deleted? Right now the politics section start off with information about the judicial system, which is very confustion. The articel should be brought in line with other articles about nations with a section explaining the structure of the German political system and a link to a main article called "Politics of Germany"

POV

"The most infamous atrocity that Nazi Germany had initiated was the persecution and genocide of Jews, Poles, minorities such as gypsies and homosexuals as well as political prisoners throughout occupied Europe." Atrocity is pure POV,I am not saying it wasn't an atrocity, I'm just saying it isn't neutral. Dudtz 11/6/05 4:48 PM EST

Then simply come up with a better description. --84.245.183.98 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

Shouldn't Transportation be moved from "misselenous Topics" to the main content as its own section. Most web-site with infromation regarding countries list Transportation under their main content Gerdbrendel 22:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Smear section

The article is now the target of POV pushers which seems to have serious problems with Germany and extremely dubious motives for editing this article.

No other country article at Wikipedia has a section called "genocide". There is no such section in Russia, Poland, United States, United Kingdom or Israel. Why? How many people were murdered by the Russians, the Americans or the British? Why is the ethnic cleansing and murder of many Germans/Palestinians not described at length in the Poland and Israel articles? It it self-evident that the same standard must be used for all articles. The history section of this article is intended to outline the history of Germany as a state, not listing every imaginable alleged wrongdoings which has little with the purpose of the section to do. The section on national socialism is already far too long compared to other sections like the HRR section, the "Restoration and revolution" and the "German Empire". It needs to be focused on what is relevant for the history of Germany as a state, not to be further extended. Spending more place on this than the entire HRR section (covering 1,000 years of history) is outrageous and completely out of proportion. Anti-German smear from dubious POV pushers will be removed. BoroughPeter 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First, you have been reverted at least 8 times by at least four different editors, despite many warnings not to continue to act as a vandal, and you should be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Secondly, the articles on Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, France, and many others mention their role in the Holocaust, it seems strange and badly motivated to argue that there should be no mention of it in the Germany article given its acknowledged role in industrialized mass murder (or what you call an "alleged wrongdoing"), further, distasteful though your comparison is, there certainly are sections on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the article in Israel. Your decision to repeatedly delete every mention of the Holocaust as POV pushing is not acceptable, and not in line with consensus. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It is often claimed but untrue that the much shorter history section in the the US article does not include the distruction of the Indian Nations. We have gone through this many times before. People just make assumptions based on their own likes and dislikes and never bother to check. The holocaust also appears in the article on the Netherlands, which had just over 100.000 of its Jews murdered in Germany and Poland. All their names are available on the web. gidonb 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please check for vandalism

This page has been vandalized by 24.235.144.129 (diff). Please could somebody check if his changes have survived in the current version and remove them. Cacycle 20:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

==User:Str1977 removal of financing== . You succeeded in killing this sourced and highly revealing quote by using off-topic elsewhere, now it is too detailed. Removal of such info totally is not right, try and integrate it . This actually should be dealt with seriously str1977, as ever on WP the article is poor in explanation , there is no requisite to prevent clarity and it provides more clarity than the article possesses. I revert.EffK 01:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This detailed info does not belong in the main article on Germany. Please insert it elsewhere where it is more on-topic. The "History" section is too long already. Your revert also reinserted linkspam. I have reverted back to Str1977.Kusma (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Weblink section massively shortened

I deleted most of the links from the Weblinks section because it was way too long. Someone remember the About-5-links-rule? Here are explanations on the deleted links:

Deleted

Even though they represent the political head of Germany, they are not Germany alone. There are articles about these bodies, the links should go there. In short: Too specific.

Too specific. Where's the link about working in Germany?

  • Deutsche Welle Germany's international broadcaster, 30 language website

A broadcaster, so what? Doesn't extend this article.

Too specific plus there is already the Manual for Germany.

  • Germany Info — Official site of the German Embassy, the German Information Centre, and the Consulates General in the United States

Too specific. Use your favourite search engine with "embassy germany" plus your country's capital and you'll get the German embassy responsible for your country. The German embassy in Washington, D.C., does not cover the whole English-speaking world.

One statistical site is enough, see below.

Commercial route planer and not even usable for the only-English-speaking reader, because it's in German. I consider this to be linkspam.

  • www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/indexgermany.asp Germany taxes, business and economy

Commercial site, too specific.

  • Parks in Germany — National parks, nature parks, reserves and other protected areas.

Commercial site, and if there's a national park list, where's the amusement park list, the ...?

Admittedly interesting, but I guess the 4 MByte HTML table will kill one or the other browser. If at all, should go into an article about Germany's history.

Kept

Apart from the offical site, I kept these three:

I think both of them are interesting to read and extend this article better than any of the above mentioned since they cover many aspects about Germany, just like this article covers many aspects of Germany.

  • Destatis.de — Federal Statistical Office Germany (in English)

Honestly, could be removed as well, but I thought some statistical info (that doesn't come from the CIA factbook :) might be interesting after all.

Deleted sentence about racism

"Racism in Germany is a very serious problem. According to a 2003 poll by Infratest, more than 59% of germans think there are "too many foreigners" living in Germany, and 23% agreed that "Jews have too much influence in Germany"."

First of all, racism is a problem everywhere in the world. The quotes come from two different polls, non done by Infratest. Last but not least, similar polls in other countries often show higher numbers. Lars T. 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Weimar Republic EffK Edits

I refer editors if concerned at my recent changes to sourceing recently discussed on Holocaust, Reichstag Fire Decree, Enabling Act and in my history. I source thses statements from William L.Shirer, Edgar Ansel Mowrer,The Nuremberg Trials as at the above discussions, Arthur Rosenberg ,ditto . Thankyou. EffK 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish False Numbers

Jews believe 6 million people died during WWII but that figure is proved to be false. In 1995, Auschwitz changed it plaque at the museum to read "1 million" jews died there, replacing the previous plaque that stated 4 million jews died there. A difference of 3 million people. So jews typical 6 million figure is now only 3, yet they continue to use 6 million.

Im not a revisionist, I just want the truth. And Im embarrassed Jews keep trying to change history to suit their needs. America wouldnt be in this war with muslims if Jews didnt control everything.

From the Auschwitz article:
For many years, a memorial plaque placed at the camp by the Soviet authorities and the Polish communist government stated that 4 million people had been murdered at Auschwitz. This number was never taken seriously by Western historians, and was never used in any of the calculations of the death toll at Auschwitz (which have generally remained consistantly around 1-1.5 million for the last sixty years) or for the total deaths in the Holocaust as a whole. After the collapse of the Communist government, the plaque was removed and the official death toll given as 1.1 million. Holocaust deniers have attempted to use this change as propaganda, in the words of Nizkor: "Deniers often use the "Four Million Variant" as a stepping stone to leap from an apparent contradiction to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax, again perpetrated by a conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. If they can't keep their numbers straight, their reasoning goes, how can we say that their evidence for the Holocaust is credible? One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the "Four Million Variant" is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories.
And I am blocking you for 24 hours, lay off the anti-Semitism when you come back. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Formation of Germany

Why is France (in his article) formed with the treaty of Verdun and Germany with the Franco-Prussian-War? Can you explain me the choise of the date, please? If I understand the thesis of German Historian Heinrich August Winkler well, todays Germany is formed in 1990 with the Reunification.

France has a continous history of statehood since the middle ages. Central authority waxed and waned, but always remained reasonably strong. Germany has a continous ethnic identity for about the same period of time. But the eastern part of Charlemagne's realm disintegrated into independend cities and states fairly soon. Germany only reconsolidated into a single, coherent state in 1871 with the formation of the German Reich - previously it was a collection of states. There is no legal or organisatorial continuation from an older German state (there is some from Prussia, though). As for the thesis that Germany was only formed in 1990, that is one possible view, but not a very useful one. The GDR joined the FRG, governed by the FRG constitution. There is a clear continuation of FRG constitutional institutions. --Stephan Schulz 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

GDP

I noticed the article places per capita GDP at 18th place, just ahead of the Uk, wheras the actual figures quoted place it just behind the UK. There is a discrepancy between the country articles and the article on list of countries by GDP, where the rankings are listed. Sandpiper 12:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

school system

"The German school system consists of an elementary school (Grundschule) where pupils go for 4 years (1.-4. grade) after that, in some states, they go to a secondary school where they learn English, French or Latin as their first foreign language (erste Fremdsprache).(...)"

only very few states in germany have the system with secondary schools.... Yeus 12:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When your first foreign language is Latin or French, is English the second foreign language. When you begin with English, is Latin or French the second language. The third foreign language you CAN lear at school are Oldgreek, Russian, Spanish, Italian, rarely Hebrew. All Bundesländer in Germany have thesame schoolsystem.

that's not true... the school system varies from state to state and not all of them have structured their school system in 3 parts. Some states have only an elementary school and after that students go to one of the 3 continuative schools until 13th or 10th grade.Yeus 12:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"and have less chance to get a job, or 'Realschule' (7.-10.), where they can learn both English and French but also have less chance to get a job,"

  • This is utter bullshit. You can't go to university with such a diploma, true. But that has nothing to do with your chances of getting a job.

Some schools start teaching English or French in first grade.

Natürlich haben alle Bundesländer (fast) dasselbe Schulsystem.Jedenfalls gibts in allen Ländern Gymnasium, Realschule und Hauptschule. Es gibt auch Schulen, die alles in einem sind: Gesamtschulen! Da ist :

  • Gymnasium= A-Kurs
  • Realschule=B-Kurs
  • Hauptschule=C-Kurs

Claim to border the most countries and claim to be on THE crossroads of Europe

Of countries located wholly within Europe, Germany borders the most countries: Denmark, Netherlands, Beglium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia and Poland (that's 9). In Europe, Russia borders the wholly European countries of Norway, Finland, Eesti, Lātvija, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine (that's 8). However, Russia is only partially in Europe, one potential argument in favor of Germany. That said, Russia also borders 3 countries whose territory is, like Russia's, partially in Europe: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (that's a total of 11). Other than that, Russia also has land borders with China, Mongolia and North Korea, for a total of 14 countries bordered by Russia. To boot, Russia has not insignificant maritime boundaries with the U.S. and Japan. China, uninterestingly enough, also has land borders with 14 countries. Looks like nobody's gonna win that particular pissing match.  :-) Tomertalk 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I dealt with this incorrect statement in the past, but it re-emerged. Also I took out the alleged "fact" that Germany is on THE crossroads of Europe. This is totally POV, good for a PR bulletin when trying to attract business, but to the best of my knowledge there are MANY crossroads in Europe. gidonb 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I count three. At least. ;-) Tomertalk 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I asked this once at Talk:Russia, and now that the term has come up again, I'll ask it again here: What precisely is a "maritime boundary"? Is there some agreed-upon definition by which Russia has a maritime boundary with Japan and the U.S. but not with, say, Canada (over the Arctic Ocean) or Bulgaria (over the Black Sea)? --Angr (t·c) 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at this... :-) If you dig through the CIA World Factbook, looking at "Maritime claims" in each country's article, most countries' maritime claims hold "territorial waters" to be 12km or 12 mi offshore, some claim as much as 200 mi. "exclusive economic zones" as well, whatever that means, precisely. This is the case with Russia. Russia comes closest to Bulgaria about 500 mi. across the Black Sea, and about 250 mi., I think, from Turkey. The closest Russia comes to Canada is about 1000 mi. Hokkaido, on the other hand, is just 13 mi. from the southern Kurils, and while Russia's territorial seas are 12 km. out, Japan's are 12 nautical miles, which is 13.82 miles...meaning that parts of the southernmost of the Kurils would be within Japan's national waters, except that there is an agreement delineating just where the "maritime boundary" between Hokkaido and the Kurils lies. The Diomede Islands, on the other hand, are 1.8 mi. apart. Big Diomede is the easternmost point in Russia, and Little Diomede, 1.8 mi. to its east, is part of Alaska. Since the territorial seas of the US and Russia are both significantly greater than 0.9 mi., an international border has to be drawn in the water. :-) Any help? Tomertalk 23:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's roughly what I said on Talk:Russia would be my definition if anyone asked me. What I don't know is whether there is an internationally agreed-upon definition of "maritime border", or if it's just an intuitive kinda thing. --Angr (t·c) 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Genocide of the Hereros

Is the genocide of the Herero people irrelevant to this article, just because an editor has hardly heard of it. I doubt whether this is a valid criterium. The following text was twice removed by the same editor and I believe it is relevant to a balanced reading of German history (some of my ancestors were Germans themselves). The very short text:

In the years 1904-1907 Germans killed most of the Herero population of German South-West Africa in the Herero Genocide.

I believe there is lots of stuff in the article that is far less relevant and am willing to make some place if necessary. Is genocide irrelevant when Africans get murdered? I hope not. gidonb 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me like a very sudden and specific piece of information in a paragraph that otherwise has no mention of Germany's overseas colonies at the time. It's not irrelevant, but it has no context. Also, it would be better to say who specifically was responsible for the massacre rather than saying simply "Germans". --Angr (t·c) 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course all historic details are just a pieces in a puzzle, but together they form one picture. It seems that the German government of the time and its representative, the General Lothar von Trotha, were responsible, as well as the 14.000 German soldiers that participated in this effort. The genocide and the responsibility for the genocide were recognized by the governments of the BRD, however my single line just added some facts without interpreting them as the current German government does. If nobody has serious objections I will put it back. gidonb 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For a very general article like this one, it's probably better to give a rough sketch of the puzzle than a single piece of it. I do think a mention of German colonization of Africa, East Asia, and Oceania is worth mentioning in the section on the German Empire, and some more detail can be added at German Empire. There's more discussion of German colonialism at History of Germany#Wilhelminian Era too. Ideally there could even be an article on German colonization of Africa. --Angr (t·c) 18:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Angr, thank you for referring me to this article, from where this whole history seems to be omitted. I will put a longer version in the German Empire article and a short version in this article. If you have any suggestion for improvements in the wording of my very short line above, I will be much obliged. Regards, gidonb 18:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice try, esp the ridiculously sharp edit summary "why blown out of proportion. because they are "only" Africans?". No, I'm no racist. Should I turn the table now and ask whether your emphasis on what is "is considered one of the worst atrocities in German colonial history "[5] in spite of little mention, if any, in history books on German history is not anti-German POV-pushing? Not to miss the topic, why is the herero genocide more noteworthy than the Emser Depeche, Kulturkampf, social law legislation and the fight against Socialists, fleet rivalry with England, Schlieffenplan, Burgfrieden, etc which are all excluded for reasons of lack of importance from the German History section? In fact the aforementioned events are pretty important to understanding the history of Germany, but is the genocide? And that German Empire section is large, given that the last paragraph of Restoration and Revolution actually belongs to it too. And even if you want to shift the focus from Germany to its former colonies, why is the genocide more important than the Berlin Conference, (in Europe, there's also the Congress of Berlin) or the first and Second Moroccan Crisis? Those events are in itself maybe less important but they're more important to the context of imperialistic rivalry and (self-)isolation of Germany. Uprisings and brutal beating downs in colonies are not unique, are they? How many sources on the German Empire include it and how large is the proportion? How many don't? To be a perfectly secondary source, the way I see it not only facts should conform to primary sources but also impressions and the proportion of facts should stick close to historical references. Sciurinæ 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It may be helpfull to find comparable massacres commited by other colonial powers and see how it's handled in their articles. Also it would be good if we could put it into context, wether it was an unusual singular event like the holocaust or something that all colonial powers did / would have done (was it special German or colonial behaviour). If it was more colonial behaviour the place for it would certainly be an article dealing with the German colonies. That Germany was a colonial power is already mentioned here, further details should only be added if they are specificly German (e.g. was a relativly cruel colonial power) or have an impact on todays Germany. Nevfennas 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
United Kingdom says things like "The Act of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland" and "At its zenith, the British Empire stretched over one quarter of the Earth's surface and encompassed a third of its population". No mention at all of anything that could make the UK look bad in any way. Similar France. United States is a little more open: "In the process, the U.S. displaced most American Indian nations. This displacement of American Indians continues to be a matter of contention in the U.S., with many tribes attempting to assert their original claims to various lands. In some areas American Indian populations had been reduced by foreign diseases contracted through contact with European settlers, and US settlers acquired those emptied lands. In other instances American Indians were removed from their traditional lands by force." Lars T. 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(answer to Sciurinæ) I believe that the problem lays in your viewing facts as pro-German or anti-German. We had this problem before with the Holocaust, which some people who were very engaged with page wanted to ommit. A history should be written from a value-neutral perspective and whether a fact is more or less convenient should not be a consideration. Otherwise we can really bring this page back to be the praising song for the greatness of the German culture and science that it used to be. As can be seen I contributed to these parts of the article, but I also believe that there is place for all aspects of Germany in a true NPOV article. gidonb 19:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I will start with the inclusion in the article that Angr kindly suggested and will continue the discussion here about a short inclusion of some sort in this article. Here again Angr gave a first lead on the way. I am open to additional suggestions. gidonb 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that a cruel colonial policy is notable enough to be mentioned here. Most colonial powers were cruel and it seems that the main reason why the Herero died was because of the lack of resources of the land in which they lived. Andries 12:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. This is a well documented genocide, and has been recognized as such by the German government. There are several reasons why it is important to include this genocide also in the main article: the horror of the genocide itself and the cruelty of the colonial regime, a background to the subsequent genocides as they were not the first German genocides, and the struggle of the Hereros to receive compensation for the atrocities that continues today. gidonb 14:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from page

The following was written under the heading "Definition":

Officially the term "Deutschland" since 1945 does not describe the country (the FRG)any more but the landscape including the territories seceded to Poland and the Soviet Union. But, however, "Germany" is often used instead of "The Federal Republic of Germany".

This seems like a somewhat controversial statement, and certainly one that I wouldn't like to have in the article without ample verification, so I'm moving here in the meantime. --Angr (t·c) 14:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not controversial, it's a fact, but it's very difficult to verify just because it's a detail no one knows. You should look it up in a good german encyclopedia (Brockhaus, Meyers etc.); by looking up "Deutschland" you will never (never ever) find the county but the landscape as defined, so you will have to look up "Bundesrepublik". I suppose this definition was created to appease conservatives who didn't want to give up old claims. I hope other users will find some other proofs. The writer

I took my Meyers Großes Handlexikon off the shelf, looked up "Deutschland", and sure enough, there was an article about the Bundesrepublik. No separate article on "Deutschland" as a "landscape" including pre-1937 territories now in Poland and Russia. de:Deutschland is also about the Bundesrepublik. And your claim that "Deutschland" officially refers to the pre-1937 territories is still unsubstantiated. The fact that "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" is the official name does not mean that "Deutschland" officially refers to something else. --Angr (t·c) 20:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange...my encyclopedia (dtv-Lexikon 1996, Nr. 4 p. 143) defines Germany as "geschichtlich im Allgemeinen Bezeichnung für das Sprach- und Siedlungsgebiet der Deutschen in Mitteleuropa innerhalb häufig wechselnder Staatsgrenzen, von 1871-1945 gleichbedeutend mit dem Deutschen Reich. Nach dem 2. Weltkrieg wurde der Name Deutschland verwendet, um das Deutsche Reich innerhalb der Grenzen vom 31.12.1937 zu bezeichen (before the expansion), sowie als Namensbestandteil der BRD; ab 1990 auch für die deutsche Wirtschaftsunion und die am 3.10.1990 erweiterte Bundesrepublik" (too long to translate it quickly, sorry). The last sentence is interesting, allowing your (or your encyclopedia's) definition, although "Germany" (the country) has not been re-established within the frontiers of 1937, so actually this criterion is not fullfilled to say that the FRG now is identical to "Deutschland". And the first sentence supports my definition. In this case none of our definitions can be recognized as the one and only, and my addition was in fact useless, although it was not my invention...It could perhaps be mentioned that "Germany" was not used to define the county before 1990, and from a historical point of view Germany is more than the FRG, even nowadays.

I seem to vaguely recall something about the BRD not officially recognizing the Oder-Neiße line as Germany's eastern border until more or less the time of reunification. Also, before reunification, there was no official name for the BRD and the DDR considered together as a unit, quite apart from the Silesia/Pomerania/East Prussia question. But now there is only one state using the name Deutschland, and it officially recognizes the Oder-Neiße line as its eastern border, so I think it's safe to say that since 1990, Deutschland and Bundesrepublik Deutschland have referred to the same entity, although this was previously not so. --Angr (t·c) 22:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, the BRD didn't have normal relations with any Warsaw Pact countries prior to reunification, which mootifies any question about formal recognition by the BRD of the Oder-Niesse Line, not only because it was a boundary with Poland, a Warsaw Pact country, but also because the Oder and Niesse never even approach the former BRD, so such a boundary recognition would have been analogous to Canada recognizing the Rio Grande as the formal boundary between the US and Mexico. That said, there was, afaik, a de facto acceptance oby the BRD that upon unification, the international boundaries of the DDR would not be altered, other than to incorporate its territory into the BRD. I'm not exactly certain if there's a dispute here about this matter, but I think it should be a fairly easy matter to obtain documentation speaking to the issue... Tomertalk 08:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
That said, according to the definition of the dtv-Lexikon, Elsaß-Lotringen, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, parts of Belgium and the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Hungary, as well as most of Austria and Switzerland are technically "Deutschland"...in fact, if you count descendants of German speakers and discount the "central europe" bit, most of the northern US, as well as large parts of Texas, are also "Deutschland". I don't think anyone honestly believes this to be the case, except perhaps for a few people who wish history hadn't happened the way it has...and would move therefore to discount, at the very least, the dtv-Lexikon's definition of "Deutschland", if not the entire dtv-Lexikon as a whole, as a reliable source. Tomertalk 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"so such a boundary recognition would have been analogous to Canada recognizing the Rio Grande as the formal boundary between the US and Mexico". Not quite; Canada regards the United States as an independent sovereign state. The BRD never regarded the DDR as one; it was considered a part of Germany occupied by the Soviets. I have German atlases from the 1970s where the 1937 borders are still shown as dotted lines inside Poland, and the pre-1937 territories are included on maps of things like climate and agriculture in Germany. This isn't the case in my atlases from the 1990s. West German newspapers usually called East Germany "die Sowjetzone" (or just "die Zone" for short) until the late sixties, when they started using "DDR" (usually with "scare quotes" or modified with "so-called", at least at first). Some also used "Westdeutschland" for the BRD, "Mitteldeutschland" for the DDR, and "Ostdeutschland" for Silesia/Pomerania/East Prussia. Even the abbreviation BRD was often avoided, because (in the words of the dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache) "irgendwann einmal jemand darin ein Wort der DDR und die von der DDR verfolgten politischen Ziele gesehen hat." The significance of the BRD's recognition of the Oder-Neiße line is that now the door is closed on ever having those territories returned to Germany. Before that recognition, it was at least a theoretical possibility that a reunited Germany might seek to get Pomerania/Silesia/East Prussia back from Poland and the USSR. --Angr (t·c) 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah...I remember it was a big deal, back in '91, that BRD had signed a border agreement w/ Poland, even here in Podunk's local newspaper...As I said tho, I think it had more to do with the fact that the pre-reunification govt didn't have normal relations with any Warsaw Pact countries than with any hope of regaining territories in Ostpreußen, Pomern or Schlesien. Wait a tic...what's the issue here?  :-p Tomertalk 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)