Talk:History of Germany/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Battle at Teutoburg forest 2 Reworking this page 3 Confederation of the Rhine 4 Konrad Adenauer 5 Lead paragraphs 6 Where's this article headed? 7 Czechoslovakia? What Czechoslovakia? 8 Biases in Heimdal's version 9 Red Army Faction... should be Fraction? 10 Friedrich Ebert 11 Missing Facts/ Links /Questions 12 Germanic tribes 13 The box 14 Persecution of Poles during Bismarck 15 What Ausrotten means in regards to people 16 Reversions 16.1 Reasons 17 News: German Wiki Notice Board 18 NSDAP 19 Link to German History in Documents and Images (GHDI) 20 We need to go further back in time 21 Framework for articles related to the history of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe 22 Complaint

[edit] Battle at Teutoburg forest

shouldn't this be the "varus battle" instead of the "battle of teutoburg forest" since it seems to be proven, that the battle happened _not_ in the forest? musschrott

Strong support for this. Nowadays it is assumed that battle has been happened at Kalkriese, which is north of Teutoburg forest.

--Kune 21:09, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

The term "battle of teutoburg forest" originates from Tacitus, who located the battle in the "saltus teutoburgensis". The forrest was named Teutoburg Forrest only after historians had erroneously identified it as the battlefield in the 19th century. The name of the battle of the battle is correct, the name of the forrest isn't. Nevfennas 18:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking this page

I got no replies to my request for comments for my plan on reworking this page (now in the archive), so I went ahead and did it. History of Germany only has brief outlines for each period any more, and the details (as far as they exist(ed)) are in the various subpages. I have added a box at the top right of each article to make clear that this is a series of articles. djmutex 18:45 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Confederation of the Rhine

In your otherwise excellect and comprehensive coverage of German History, there seems to me to be a gap in that there was no mention of the Confederation of the Rhine (circa 1806-1816). Wikipedia search facility gives no reference.

[edit] Konrad Adenauer

Don't you think that Konrad Adenauer should also be mentioned? In my opinion, he is the most important German chancellor, and more important than Willy Brandt (who is mentioned). Mainly together with Ludwig Erhard, he actually influenced the economy and policical system of the Federal Republic, and opened Germany to the western world. Even though, I don't dare to fill it in, because I am not a native English speaker and my English is not good enough. Furthermore my history knowledge is also very limited.

[edit] Lead paragraphs

Does anyone share Heimdal's preference (nay, insistence?) that the article have no lead paragraphs at all?  Alai 23:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just restored the lead section, of which this article is in dire need, unless of course anyone prefers to see it loose its current featured condition. If the lead is removed once again, I'll vote for its demotion. -- Shauri 15:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The three paragraphs are OK, but they need rewording. I'm not at all sure whether the lead section should contain a link to the History of Austria. Also, I would advise against putting Germany into quotation marks ("Germany"), regardless of the context. After all, nobody would put America ("America") into quotation marks either when referring to the United States. -Heimdal 13:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's this article headed?

42K long, no lead section, idiosyncratic section length -- certainly no longer looks like "featured article" quality to me. Anyone follow the logic of what's going on here? Alai 01:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think Heimdal's expansion of the article has been beneficial, but there should be a lead section. At present, there doesn't even seem to be a link to Germany. Martg76 10:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But it's over length, and getting longer all the while. And Heimdal comments "Lead section takes away too much space.", a recognition of sorts that article length is a valid concern. Given that all the subtopics have their own articles, why is this lopsided expansion in any way beneficial? Alai 02:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I, for once, can't understand why Heimdal believes this article to be his personal property. It was started and well developed by other users a long time ago, who put their effort to see it Featured. Only because he doesn't care about it retaining that status, doesn't mean the rest of us should cope why an article that has become excesively long in an useless way. As far as I'm concerned, I think all he has done is depriving it of its once excellent schematic design, that directed to other articles on each individual subtopic when relevant. That, not to mention the absence of a lead, which this article desperately needs. His absolute lack of interest about this article loosing its Featured condition means a complete contempt for the users who made it become Featured, and equals to recognising that as long as he's pleased with his edits, he doesn't care about what everyone else here thinks. I won't fight against that, that's useless; but I won't shut up and see a now mediocre article remain Featured, despite my sympathy for those who once made it great. -- Shauri 03:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems to be a familiar pattern of behaviour by Heimdal. He's pretty much single-handledly responsible for the semi-permanently protected state of the Germany article, by doing very similar things: removing lead material, disportionately expanding the history section, ignoring talk page discussions, conducting arguments by way of edit summaries. If there were more editors here on a regular basis, it'd be easier to establish whether his edits were with or against any sort of consensus. Alai 05:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, Alai, you can count at least on me to support you arguments and/or to proceed to any action(s) needed to stop the repeated disrespect that this character shows to his peers. I see that he's not unknown to admins due to his continuous vandalism (sort of) at Germany, so if you need me to endorse any arguments regarding this History of Germany article, I'll be here. And just for the record, I have an infinite patience, so if he removes the lead a thousand times, I'll reinstall it a thousand and one. -- Shauri 06:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you're all suffering from Heimdall as well. I know him from the Germany page, where he was constantly reverting the history section to his version. I'm putting this page on my watch list and will try to help you. Concerning the lead section, it is obviously necessary since Germany's history was much more chaotic than France's (i.e. the whole HRE imbroglio). I'll try to cut down the rest of the page - I'm getting used to it since I also cut down the history section on Germany. Luis rib 11:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib and Shauri - just stop disrupting the work by others - in this case, my work. You both have contributed very little to this article, to say the least. Neither is this article "anti-French", as Luis rib had insinuated, nor is the lead section too short! Heimdal 19:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was anti-French POV in the article (i.e. the whole Poincaré thing, as well as blaming hyperinflation on the French). I merely deleted things that are not mentioned on the Weimar Republic page, since this page should not contain more detail than its subpage. Also, Weimar Republic has too much detail compared to WWII and post-WWII. The article doesn't even mention Adenauer. On the other hand, your version mentions tons of people of lesser importance. It is therefore highly imbalanced. Luis rib 19:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• My last revert to Luis rib's version, intending to undo only Heimdall's revert, unintentionally overwrote Shauri's, so I reverted myself to give Shauri's version (March 2? That's rather bold, if that's the right word!) a chance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My friends, I've had enough of this person. I'm keeping this page and Germany in my watchlist and keep taking part into the debate at the Talk pages, but I won't enter a war edit with a person that doesn't bother to discuss his single sided, massive, POV edits. I believe that the time has come to ask for Arbitration once and for all, and you can count on me for that. From now on, however, I won't make more edits on the article until the situation has been solved. -- Shauri 19:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have explained above already, the article is neither "anti-French" (why, it's largely taken from a German schoolbook!) nor is the lead section too short. I'm just trying to improve the article, that's all! Heimdal 19:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, I have not yet had the time to edit the Third Reich and 20th century sections. What you see is the old version, not mine. -Heimdal 19:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mr. Heimdal, at last you bother yourself to come to the Talk page, so I see that my revert did work after all. You may think the lead is not too short, but it's evident that only you have that idea. The article is also now extremely long, way more than needed when considering that each subtopic has an article for itself. Many dedicated editors made this article one of the few Featured ones at Wikipedia. You have manifested clearly that you don't care at all about this article being demoted due to your work, and thus indicating that you don't care about what your peers wrote, or think about this article. What gives you the right to spit at their work? -- Shauri 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shauri, I started to rewrite the article from the beginning because I felt that the previous version was insufficient - featured article or not. But I didn't rewrite it all alone, some others contributed as well. I have just finished with the Weimar Republic, and I would like to end the article without starting an edit war. My plan is to end with the Unification of the two Germanys. My goal is an improved version, and if that is vandalism, I don't know what else is. Neither is the article too long. Just go to the German version: "Geschichte Deutschlands", on the German Wikipedia - it's still longer. -Heimdal 20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, let's be reasonable - I apollogize if I acted too hastily, but I would have loved to have this talk with you before, and until now, you were nowhere to be found at the Talk page. Finish your version as you are planning it, I won't interfere. Once it is finished, we should discuss calmly at this Talk page any changes to improve it that everyone, including you, may have. I commit myself not to interrupt you when you are proceeding to rewrite it, as long as you comit yourself to actually hear suggestions when you're done. Last but not least, the lead is needed; don't think your concesion of actually putting a lead has gone unnoticed, that was a fair detail. But I believe the former lead is much better for a beginner in the History of Germany; you call that idea obsolete, and that's ok for a German specialist like you, but not for most part of the public. Your concern about its lenght is not quite valid when we're talking about three short paragraphs, compared to the overall lenght of the article. As long as the former lead is kept, and you're open to discussion once your revision is done, it's all fine with me. Regards, -- Shauri 20:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will respect Heimdal's reversion of the whole page until unification is done as well. I would like to point out, however, that though Heimdall does indeed present a lot of new details, he sometimes also deliberately keeps some subjects short (to drown them in details about other stuff?). Also, there is definetely an anti-French bias in the Weimar Republic section, since it includes innuendos that even the Weimar Republic article does not mention. I will raise these issues again once Heimdal is done with his version (note his complete indifference to whatever other editors might think about it... a trait of character he also displayed on Germany). Luis rib 21:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Ruhrjung 21:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, Shauri and Ruhrjung - actually, I have to be selective, because otherwise the article would never end. I use a timetable of German history, which luckily is in English, that helps! Additionally, I use a couple of German history books; so basically I do a lot of translation work from German into English.
As regards the alleged "anti-French" stance. It's a simple fact that one of the main motives behind the Ruhr occupation by French troops in 1923 was France's wish to cut off the Rheinland and the industrially important Ruhr from Germany, and to incorporate them into France. The French government itself actively supported secession movements in the Rheinland. It is my understanding that since the Franco-Prussian War, France percieved Germany as a rival and as a threat, and that after WWI, France (from the Treaty of Versailles to the Ruhr occupation) pursued a policy intended to weaken Germany. Just why it is "anti-French" to state all this clearly, I don't know.
I'm planning to start rewriting the Third Reich section later this day. The next three days I'll be off - I will be back only on Monday next week. As I've said, I would like to end the article with the German Reunification of 1990. On "Germany since 1945" I intend to be short. I will cover only the German Division and Unification, and leave everything else to the History of Germany since 1945, which continues this article. - Heimdal 10:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're at least willing to discuss your plan for the article, Heimdal. I agree you have to be selective; in fact, I'd suggest you really have to be a good deal more selective. In particular, it's not really a good plan in my opinion for this article to become 'permanently' substantially longer than 32K: that's not the structure WP is intended to have. So my all means expand in some places, but there really ought to be a willingness to get the article back to reasonable size. These topics are all dealt with in more detail elsewhere, the objective of this article ought to be to provide a good, well-structured overview to help put those different pieces together. Just throwing extra detail into given sections for detail's sake isn't a good idea, in my judgement. Alai 04:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alai - actually, I've never quite understood the complaints about an article being "too long". This is an online encyclopaedia, is it not? And as with all encyclopaedias, the more information there is, the better! What matters most to me is not so much the length but the quality of information. Also, I think that an article ought to be entertaining. Just to put up a list of dry facts won't do. But I'll try to do my best to be as concise as possible. -Heimdal 11:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 32K thing was some technical problem which doesn't count any more, but I can see an advantage in keeping this page fairly concise. People reading about particular events in history may want as much detail as possible, and they'll find that on the links, or the pages linked to those, and so on. But people reading this page are probably looking for a basic outline. When there are too many details it can be hard to discover the important parts. That's the advantage of online encyclopaedias, that you can use links to give people access to more detail if they want it. It would be nice if people could actually read all this page at one sitting without getting sore eyes.

BTW, how can you find out if the article has gone over 32K? Where can you read it? Saintswithin 19:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin - to find out the length of an article, click on "edit this page" at the top of the article. Then a warning in bold letters shows up indicating the number of kilobytes.
This article is currently 50kB long. This may seem much. However, it's still less than the 77kB of the "Geschichte Deutschlands" on the German Wikipedia.
The previous version was certainly shortish. But I also found that it only scratched the surface of German history. Many important events were only mentioned at random, or not at all. That's why I decided to rewrite the whole piece from top to bottom. This may cost the page its status of "featured article". But if, at the end, the result is a better and more informational article, that price may be worth paying.-Heimdal 12:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's the same kind of argument you used to terrorise the Germany page. If there is a consensus for shortening the article, it should be implemented. People wanting more information can always read the links. Luis rib 16:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, if you've resisted the impulse click on a link you must have seen many, many times, please see Wikipedia:Article size to answer your question about why "too long" is "too long". It may be less than straightforward in some cases where there's an issue of how to structure or split a topic it's not possible to do justice to in <= 32K -- but that's already been done in this case. It's legitimate to ask whether it was an effective summary and appropriate overview; it's not to say it's too short and must be lengthened throughout, duplicating material in other articles willy-nilly. I don't see what bearing the length of the German wikipedia article has here: no-one doubts there's more than 32K than can be written on the topic, and what policies de.wp wants to have on article size, and whether it wants to enforce it, is their business. (There's come to that 100s of article here longer that this, but none of them are especially good arguments for any of the others.) Alai 04:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To quote from the discussion page on "Geschichte Deutschlands": "Und statt eines so unglaublich langen Artikels - über 50 Manuskriptseiten! - wie wäre es mit einer Artikelserie wie in der englischen Wikipedia (en:History of Germany)" ("And instead of such an incredibly long article - more than 50 printed pages - what about a series of articles like on English wikipedia") (See the discussion here) - sure, the article can go a little over 32K, but do we really want to head for the same situation as the German article which people are already complaining about? Saintswithin 09:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib and Alai - you may be content with clicking on links. But others, including myself, may want to have something more than that. -Heimdal 09:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's no argument whatsoever. The material is already here, and "clicking on links" is a benefit of an online encyclopedia, not a chore. The article size policy says nothing about "ignore these limits for 'important' topics where one editors decides to hijack the article". If this article keeps growing and growing, and you continue to adopt this sort of dismissive attitude towards the concerns of other editors, I'm going to give serious consideration to simply reverting to the "featured article" version. Alai 03:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin - I don't contribute to the German Wikipedia. But personally I think that the German article is excellent, despite its length. I don't see any serious attempts to shorten that article either. Perhaps, just like here, it's only a few people who are barking loudest. Of course, we could also go the "French way". See the History of France, where the sections "First French Empire", "French Restoration", "Second Republic" and "Second French Empire" don't have any text at all - just links. That's certainly a way to keep the article short. But whether it does justice to the so-called "high standards" of the Wikipedia is another matter entirely. - Heimdal 10:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, Heimdal, but it may not be shared by other people. In this specific case, many people want a shorter article. Obviously you are indifferent to that. Luis rib 11:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who these "many people" are that you're referring to. However, what I can say for sure is that despite your desperate attempts to whip things up here, it's basically you and Alai that are lenghtening this discussion page. -Heimdal 12:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I remeber Shauri and Ruhrjung too. Which makes it 4 to 1.Luis rib 12:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must say I'm 100% with Luis and Alai on this. That makes at least a 3 to 1, and that's only those who are around and willing to post at this page, not the number of people who are against Heimdal's edits. The article lost its featured status on a unanimous 7:0 vote due to his merciless destruction; that means something. This article is now flawed beyond recognition, and now that Heimdal's version can be fully seen and it becomes evident that no improvements have been made (I commited myself to wait until that moment and discuss after it), it is time for a very serious version reverting. Absolutely nobody supports Heimdal's version but Heimdal himself. Shauri 22:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But there are lots of good articles on Wikipedia which are not featured. Whether an article is featured or not doesn't say anything about its quality. BTW, I haven't finished to edit this article yet, because of lack of time. As I've repeatedly said, I would like to finish the article with the Unification of Germany in 1990. My goal has never been "merciless destruction" but IMPROVEMENT. And let me say there was quite a lot to improve here. -Heimdal 13:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured article status has everything to do with quality, and de-featuring is a pretty direct expression of a drop in quality, or else a failure to keep up with rising standards elsewhere. I'm happy to assume good faith on your part that you intend to improve the quality of the article, but what I'm not prepared to do is to accept your judgement that in fact you have done so, against the my own, against that of the other editors here, and against that of the FAR voters. Really about the only remaining question is, which pre-Heimdal version would it be preferable to begin systematically reverting to? You seem adamant on listening to no-one. Alai 06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Czechoslovakia? What Czechoslovakia?

---

The Holy Roman Empire couldn't have encompassed "western Czechoslovakia". That state emerged in 1918 and was split in 1991/2. You could speak of the Czech Lands. --217.9.225.146 16:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Please feel free to correct. -Heimdal 08:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biases in Heimdal's version

Apart from being way too long, Heimdal's version also includes severe biases, which, though not expressed openly, can be identified easily by what was included and what was left out. Just a few examples:

• Germans and Romans: Rejoice, you all, because "Germany was freed" from those nasty Romans! Thus Germany could keep all its technological secrets for itself, such as ... well ... Whatever. In any case, the development of those parts that were Roman is not mentioned. Cologne and other cities developped, and Trier even became an imperial capital under Diocletian (or Constantine? don't remember). But these cities, of course, had to suffer Roman occupation... At least we get the list of all those important monasteries that were founded later on, such as Fritzlar. You don't know Fritzlar? Well, me neither...

sorry to interrupt the flow, Luis, I wasn't sure where comments were supposed to go here! Fritzlar is described on English wikipedia thus: "It can reasonably be argued that the town was the birthplace both of Christianity in Germany (north and east of the Roman Limes) and of the German nation as a political entity." The town may not be well-known today but I can understand why Heimdal is having a hard time leaving it out. There are several other points you make about what is "interesting for English-speaking people" or known to you - however well-read you may be, that can't be the basis for deciding whether or not they should be included. How about saying if they are mentioned in other, similar-sized (or smaller :-) printed / online overviews or encyclopaedias? BTW I hope this comment doesn't come across as unfriendly, as I agree with your basic idea of keeping the article short, but could you hold back on the sarcasm a little? Saintswithin 19:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, I didn't know Fritzlar (though the claim as birthplace of Christianity in Germany and the German nation sounds arrogant - after all Trier, Mainz and Cologne already had Christian communities). But my World History encyclopedia (in German, BTW), doesn't mention Fritzlar (it only mentions Bonifatius). Concerning your other comment: just follow the links to the subarticles (such as Weimar Republic, German Empire, etc.) and you'll see that some points deserve more attention than they got here, while others are blown completely out of proportion. I actually did consult other articles and sources before writing this. Concerning sarcasm: didn't you deal with Heimdal on the Germany page (which was blocked for ages because of him, see Talk:Germany)? If you did, you would understand. Luis rib 21:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Luis. I did catch the trouble at Germany, which is why I suggest backing things up with "evidence" and avoiding sarcasm here, so it doesn't get personal. My Meyer's Taschenlexikon in einem Band doesn't mention Fritzlar or Boniface in the history section, as it doesn't start til 843 AD, but then it is extremely short! Maybe you and Heimdal could agree on one source as a basis for reference? I.e. if it is in there it needs mentioning, or if it isn't, it doesn't.

I wonder if the "bias" comes from your sometimes using a schoolbook, Heimdal? They are designed to be more exciting for children, and that could make them turn the Germans into the goodies. (Is that what you meant by a bias, Luis? I'm not very quick on the uptake, so it isn't "easily identifiable" to me :-) Saintswithin 07:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Holy Roman Empire: It's nice to know that there were strongholds in many cities (including Worms, Nijmegen and Ingelheim - who would have thought that?), but it is just a factoid. I see Goslar also became an imperial stronghold... wow. There's a lot of description of medieval life, but a mixup between trading towns, Reichstädte and Hanse towns. A lot of time is devoted to a supposed colonization of the East. Bavarian and Saxonian history are mentioned - truly interesting for English-speaking people. A party was organised by Barbarossa in Mainz - truly History with a capital H. Under Reformation, we learn about Franz von Sickingen (who? don't ask me...), who led an unsuccessful (why is it important then?) uprising. In 1556, Charles V abdicated - but when did he actually become Emperor? Why is he considered to be the most powerful Habsburg in history? Well, we'll never know. We also learn that Cardinal Richelieu and the Habsburg's fought for proeminence in Europe - factually true, but misleading, since France only joined the war lately, and Sweden probably ravaged Germany much more than France. We go on to learn that Louis XIV devastated Heidelberg, Speyer and Worms. That's truly tragic, but which towns were devastated by the Swedes, the Danes, Richelieu, Franz von Sickingen? Are you sure you didn't forget to mentiuon some village that was devastated as well? At least Germans were able to settle in another part of East Europe (the Banat, we learn). Truly interesting are the following mentions of diverse peace treaties: the Peace of Hubertsburg (never heard) between Prussia, Austria and Saxony (they were at war?), the peace of Basle between France and Prussia (they were at war?). Napoleon I, deux ex machina, dissolves the HRE. Did he actually conquer Germany to do that? We may never know. But we do know that Gerhard von Scharnhorst and August von Gneisenau reformed the Prussian army - again a useless factoid. Fortunately, Germany was liberated, but from whom, since apparently it was never occupied?
• German Confederation: a huge section for a sort period of German history - which in any case was just an intermezzo between the HRE and the German Empire. Who cares about the Wartburg festival? It had almost no importance. The murder of Kotzbue may be intersesting on the German Confederation page, but is it really necessary here? The Schleswig war gets a lot of detail, but there's nothing on the causes of the Austro-Prussian war - a much more important war, one would think. The final paragraph is marxist ("bourgois-capitalist world") and inaccuaret (how does number of joint-stock companies explain "rate of capital formation"?). In any case, many factoids again (Siemens, Gauss, etc.).
• German Empire: tons of factoids (Reinsurance treaty with Russia that had no long-tem impact whatsoever; Kulturkampf - a minor inner-German issue; Congress of Berlin - no impact on German history, and the conclusions of the congress are not even mentioned). More interesting issues are not treated in detail: why was Austria rejected? why was the Little Germany solution adopted? what was the Big Germany solution? what happened to Bohemia, which had been a par of the HRE? Instead, we have to go through tedious inner-political issues. WWI is only described in the vaguest of terms, and useless sentences are included ( Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st, and on France on the 3rd; Britain declared war on Germany on August 4th.; There was fighting in western, southern and eastern Europe, in the Near East and the German colonies. - wow, what a description.) The Brest-Litovsk treaty is mentioned with all details, but astonishingly, it is never said that it was actually never implemented, and that the Treaty of Versailles supplanted it. Strange...
• Weimar Republic: So its constitution was praised as the freest in the world. By whom? The Kapp putsch gets a long paragraph, more than in Weimar Republic. Trade between Germany and the Soviet Union is mentioned - surely a major event in the history of the Weimar Republic. Raymond Poincaré's wish to annex the Ruhr is not only POV, but also dubious: neither Weimar Republic nor Raymond Poincaré mention it. The Beer Hall putsch gets an extensive and detailed gparagraph, for some reason - its impact on the Weimar Republic was, however, quite small. Hyperinflation is disconnected from Stresemann's introduction of a new currency, even though it was the major reason why he did it. In 1931, a bank collapsed. Truly fascinating. Finally, it was "powerful lobbies" such as high finance that pressed Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. Strangely, Weimar Republic tells another story.
• In the Third Reich section, much time is devoted to inner-German themes (dissolution of the Länder - who cares?), the Olympic Games, etc. There is no description, however, of WWII. Why? The Holocaust is very briefly mentioned, as in an afterthought. Czechoslovakia is simply annexed (no refernce to the Munich conference), without mentioning that actually Slovakia became an independent puppet state. What about the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty? There's no mention about it, but the less famous Locarno treaty is mentioned a few times. The Anschluss was accepted by 99% of Austrians, the article claims. Anschluss does not say that, but makes it obvious that the plebiscite was not really free or fair.
• Germany after 45: Useless factoids (Prussia was dissolved - well it didn't exist since Hitler dissolved the Länder anyway, right?), but important facts and persons are missing. Adenauer? Not mentioned. The Berlin Wall? Not mentioned. The blockade of Berlin? Not mentioned. Helmut Kohl? Not mentioned. The German Democratic Republic? In general overlooked. But the Red Army Faction, whose influence was limited, gets a sentence.

Well, this list became a bit longer than expected... Sorry for that. At least it may show why Heimdal's version is not only too long and indulges in factoids and trivia, but manages at the same time to exclude important stuff. Luis rib 12:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't keep up with your mass edits - obviously you have more time than me to spend in front of Wikipedia. Your first point: yes, from a German point of view the defeat of the Romans was certainly a liberation. Because otherwise, Germans would not speak German today, but possibly some kind of French. Although I'm not claiming that my text is perfect (far from it), I think that the so-called "biases" only exist in your imagination. -Heimdal 13:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Germany after 45": That's still the old version, not mine. I haven't found the time to edit that section yet, as you would know if you would care to read my posts. -Heimdal 13:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a) There are no mass edits. We're on the talk page here. b) Britain was under Roman occupation and doesn't speak a Latin language c) If your text is not perfect, why do you mass revert every attempt to modify and reduce it? Luis rib 13:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First off, only England, not "Britain" was under Roman occupation, and only for a relatively short time. Despite this, English is certainly more latinised than German. Most English words are of Latin origin, actually. Secondly, I don't revert "every" attempt to modify my text. But I do revert changes that are based on spurious assumptions that my text is somehow "biased". -Heimdal 13:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why spurious? Answer the criticisms above, that's all. (BTW: So what if Germans spoke some kind of Latin language nowadays? In how far is not speaking Latin some kind of liberation? Also, the Latinised words in English come from the influence of French, which was the language of the noblemen under the Plantagenets and beyond, not because of the Romans. The Balkan countries, which were under the Roman for much longer, don't speak a Latin language (with the exception of Romania), and neither does Greece.) Luis rib 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you would not care if Germans spoke some kind of bastardised Latin language today. But this only confirms my view that you don't care a iota about Germany, the German language and German culture in general, sorry about that. Perhaps it's you who is biased (against Germany, that is), not me.-Heimdal 14:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I don't know anything about German language. I just speak it fluently and work in a German company. Also, approx. a third of my books are in German and i read the Spiegel every week. All of which makes me thouroughly ignorant of Germany and its culture. If Germanns were speaking some sort of bastardized Latin, you would be the first concerned and you wouldn't even know it - so what's the big deal? Languages evolve, that all, there's no question of liberation or freedom because of something that happened 2000 years ago. BTW You still haven't answered the criticisms above (except the Roman issue, in some way). Luis rib 14:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib - you see bias where none exists, and none is intended. Also, it's indicative that nobody else but you is accusing me of bias. Perhaps your German is not really as good as you claim. Perhaps you are merely misunderstanding, I don't know. -Heimdal 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there is no bias from your part, you surely won't mind addressing my criticisms. Luis rib 16:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin - these people don't want to discuss, they just want to mob. That's why I stopped posting on the "Germany discussion page" altogether. Interesting also that it's always the same few people who are barking loudest. You can count them on your fingers.
For what I can recall, neither the Peasants' Wars nor the Reformation were mentioned in the previous version of this article. There was a lot that was simply left unsaid, actually. That is why I started to rewrite the article from top to bottom. As things stand, I have not yet finished to edit the "Third Reich" section, and I have not even begun with "Germany since 1945".
However, if you want a shorter article, you will have to state exactly what in your opinion has to go, full stop.
As I have said, I use a timetable of German history to write down the text. Additionally I use two German history books from my old school days which I found very useful (no, I'm not a school pupil anymore), and a history book from the Brockhaus Verlag. I found none of these texts to be biased in any way. Perhaps the impression of bias simply results from the fact that German history tends to be represented differently in German books than in, say, American, British, or French texts. -Heimdal 09:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal: I'm not saying your rewriting is bad - on the contrary. It still is at the basis of the Germany article (History section), since the only thing I did at that time was to shorten your version. You, however, refused to discuss any reduction and mass reverted everything back to your previous version. You did the same on this page, where you reverted my edits - which had been simple modifications of your own version! - back to your original version. I'm not proposing to delete everything you wrote. I'm just proposing some modifications, some deletions of less important events, and some additions of events that are not very claer right now.

Concerning biases: yes, I just meant that Heimdal's version contained biases due to his use of German school books. Obviously, German history books will focus more on inner-German policy than foreign books, which will emphasize the foreign policy. I was not implying POV (except in the anti-French bias, but that too may come from the school books). Luis rib 11:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you would you read the article more carefully, you may discover that it's almost all about foreign policy, and very little about inner-German affairs. As regards the bias, it may simply be a matter of point of view. Maybe it's not me who is "anti-French", but it's you who is anti-German, perhaps as a result of your own background and education. Just the fact that calling the Roman defeat a liberation is obviously too much to bear for you, should tell a lot about your own views of Germany.-Heimdal 12:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am currently editing your work. Don't worry, it's only minor edits. Also, I won't delete anything. Feel free to comment on my edits. Luis rib 12:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib - but what exactly is gained if, for example, you substitute "Germany was freed" with "Germany remained outside Rome's sphere of influence"? What's your aim? That is also what makes me suspicious of your editing: In actual fact, you are neither shortening nor improving, but you are trying to give the text a different meaning. Perhaps to present Germany in a less favourable light? -Heimdal 13:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My formulation is more NPOV. Germany, in any case, cannot have been freed as there was no Germany at the time - Germania just referred to several tribes and peoples. What does "freed" mean in this case anyway? Were the Celts in Germania freed from the Germanic tribes? No. Inner-Germanic wars continued anyway. My aim is by no means to present Germany in a less favourable light. My aim is just to be neutral. Luis rib 13:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib - I doubt whether there can be such a thing as NPOV on a delicate subject as German history. In fact, what you're doing is that you're just adding your own US-American-whatsoever bias to the article. Anyway, before you start changing the whole page, I'd like to make you know that my edits go only as far as the paragraph about the annexation of Austria (Anschluss) in the "Third Reich" section. Everything that goes beyond that paragraph, including the section about "Germany since 1945", is still the old version. -Heimdal 14:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be possible to have a NPOV view on German history? Especially early German history should be totally neutral, I ould expect. True, difficulties may arise concerning the Third Reich. But the history before that should be mostly uncontroversial. As you'll see by my edits, I didn't delete anything important. I just rephrased several things, and added a few sentences to explain several unclear things (such as "Big German" solution). And could you please tell me where I have shown US-American bias? I haven't ever set a foot in America! Luis rib 14:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I had taken you for an American - my mistake. Nonetheless, I think that I have made the "little German" versus the "greater German" solution sufficiently clear. Just read on. -Heimdal 14:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Army Faction... should be Fraction?

In the Germany since 1945 section, there is a link to the article Red Army Faction, but that is just a redirect to Red Army Fraction. Should this be changed to make people less confused? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here? -iten

The English article says that the correct translation should be "fraction" but I'm not too sure about that translation, so see this English-German language forum for a discussion (just begun) Saintswithin 12:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "Common English Name" is "Red Army Faction". Most Native English speakers who saw "Fraction" would assume that they were reading the "Grauniad" (See Private Eye). BTW the British press not usually us the initials RAF because 99% of the population would wonder why two Germans criminals called Baader and Meinhof had been in the Royal Air Force. Philip Baird Shearer 09:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Ebert

The article for Friedrich Ebert is too short and is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I added the little that I know to the article. Can someone with more knowledge about him expand the article? Thanks. Peaceman 00:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The article was not short but some IP vandalised it. I've just reverted it.NightBeAsT 16:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Facts/ Links /Questions

I notice no link to either Reichstag Fire Decree or Enabling Act . This article skips over the Enabling Act at present . I am up-loading a guide to the Enabling Act's history . I ask any german speaker to help by reading the full german version of the Reichstag Fire Decree to determine : whether arrest of Reichstag deputies was legal or not legal after that decree ? Famekeeper 08:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic tribes

There were a lot of 'thrusting Germans' in this section. The early history might make a relatively straightforward narrative, compared to the later stuff, however it's still important to keep the language clear and neutral. I don't think it's acceptable to speak of 'Germans' before the later middle ages, nor to maintain the stereotype of Roman civilisation vs Germanic vigor.

[edit] The box

It skips from "Migration Period" directly to "Holy Roman Empire", and completely omits "Carolingian Renaissance" and "Ottonian Empire". --Wetman 13:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Poles during Bismarck

Czeslaw Luczak "Od Bismarcka do Hitlera: Polsko-Niemieckie stosunki gospodarcze"Poznan 1988 ISBN 83-210-0767-8 There were ultra-nationalist, tolerated or even backed by government organisations, such as Allgemainer Deutscher Verband, later renamed to Alldeutsched Verband, which in 1914 had 18.000 members. In Posen there was founded in 1894 Verein zur Forderung des Deutschtums in den Ostmarken, later renamed into Deutscher Ostmarkverein, which in 1909 had 50.500, and in 1912 54.100 members, recruiting in vast majority from government clerks, teachers, officers etc - this organisation was called by Poles HaKaTa from names of the founders, Hansemann, Kennemann and Tiedemann. In 1911 it called eastern provinces of Germany "the battlefield" and was later called by H.U Wehler the precursor of the Nazi party (Wehler, Krisenherde des Kaiserreichs 1817-1918, Ottingen 1979, p-193-194) because of its pathological hatred of all things Polish (p 20-21) Governmetn founded in 1886 Konigliche Ausiedlungskommission which was funding the German settlement in eastern provinces, buying the land from Polish owners etc, there were also two other organisations, in 1904 in Posen Deutsche mittlestandkasse and 1906 in Danzig/Gdansk Bauernbank fur Westpreussen. This institutions were helped by different local organisation such as Landgesselschaften and local settlement commission Kleinsiedlungsgenossenschaften. In addition there was founded Deutscher Fursorgverein, Ruckwanderstelle and many, manyother organisation with one goal: buy as many land from Poles as possible and settle as many Germans as possible.

They were encouraging Germans from foreign lands, from Galicia, Vohlyn, Hungary, Romania etc etc. The Commision for Settlement in 1886-1918 settled in Posen and West Prussia 21.886 German families, counting in total 153.800 people, from which 21.683 took over their farms before the end of 1914. 25% of them came from abroad. Many families were also helped by other organisations, which helped them buy land etc etc. At first they were settled in countryside, hpoing that Germanisation of villages will cause the Germanisation of cities, later also German craftsmen were settled in cities, mainly by HKT which settled in Posen province about 30 doctors, craftsmen etc yearly. In addition to help fight "the Polish danger in eastern provinces" the workers in factories were also settled. In period 1903-1905 325 families came to Posen and West Prussia(1379) from abroad, including 209 fro Hungary, 89 from Galicia and 27 from Russia, and to 1912 in Posen area there were 961 workers settlements. (p20-25)

People working in eastern Prussian provinces received an addition to their salary, so called "Ostmarkenzulage". Some representants of local administration proposed counting the years of service by doubling, just like in the case of the war, for the clerks working in eastern provinces.

Interesting case: in 1850 many German catholic settlers from times of XVIII, while in 1914 they considered themselves Poles - there was from 50.000 to 75.000 such settlers. This was primary reason why vast majority of new settlers were protestants (21.014 families from settlers recruited by Commission of Settlement, that is 96,9%. Similarly 90% of German clerks and teachers were protestants (p26).

In total, the estimated number of Germans settled in 1871-1914 in Posen and West Prussia was higher than 250.000.

On other hand, the Polish teachers and clerks were assigned functions in western part of Germany. Such action was taken for few thousands of Poles, amongst whom was teacher 64 years old and clerks with 40 years of job. In addition German gvt paied for special agitation in press for encouraging emigration of Poles for abroad. The exceptional ways were removal of Poles by force, first "Poles who were suspected of anti-German activity" (3 February 1872 in Posen), and later of removal of all Poles without Prussian citizenship, with exception of few who received special allowance for stay. THe mass removals started with expelling 500 Jews from Berlin. Suprisingly, some "presidents" of provinces (of Silesia and West Prussia) say that this action has no sense, since many of those Poles have already found new families and they are living there for sometimes decades. On the other hand, "presidents" of Posen and Opole (region in middle Silesia) proposed the enlarged the scope of the action. In 1884 the law was passed for removal of all Poles, who had citizenship of other states, with exception of those, who were "by mistake" drafted to Prussian army or arrived before 1843 (in practice however those exceptions were not honoured). In total 43.943 Poles were destined for removal, but finally, because deficit of workforce the number was limited to about 32.000. Among the removed there were 9 to 10.000 Jews, who admitted (with few exceptions) the belonging to Polish nation.

That actions was protested by Polish envoys to German and PRussian parliaments, which were backed by many German (Espectially Alsatians) and Danish envoys. Many politicians, like Karol Liebknecht, Ludwig Windthorst, Rudolf Virchov etc described this actions as either inhuman or illegal. Finally PRussiann government stopped the action. Amongst the removed there was 2-years old orphan adopted by Polish family in Pleszow; 98-years old woman who arrived to her grandson to Gniezno. The families were partitioned by deporting those members who had no citizenship. The Poles "suspected for anti-German policy" were for example Pole from Wroclaw (Breslau) who celebrated victory of Sobieski at Vienna or few Polish students from university. OTOH Bismarck received also the letters with approval from Germans (Even from Bohemia!), and was backed by majority of German press.

Poles were almost always serving outside eastern provinces; it was believed, in words of Bismarck, that in such way they will "know the blessing of German civilisation" (p42). German ggovernment thought, that Polish recruits will be addicted to that civilisation and will stay in western parts of Germany and in consequence they will Germanise. But only 0,01% Polish men have not returned to theur families after the service.

German clergy was colportating amongst the kids the religious books in German, hpoing that they will Germanise whole families via their kids. Their actions were supported by German government, which few times gave special funds for many of them.

Some of the German actions were ridiculous: The German clerks demanded that Polish parents will gave their newborn kids German names, and they were sometimes even changing them without consciense of parents; so Jan was written as Johann etc. German goverment also was warning the staying Polish teachers that "cultivating Polish language" in PRIVATE homes could result in deportation. Ostmarkenverein was postulating, but fortunately without success, the planned Germanisation of Polish orphans and kids from broken families. (p45)

The German view on Poles were quite simple: Poles were on lower level of civilisation. E.g. A.Dix, German writer, in 1898 said that "Slavs are typical representants of proletariat, citizens of fifth class", and "Germans in east should be everywhere the masters". T.Schon, president of West PRussia, wrote, that main task of his administration is to "turn ex-slaves Slavs into people and Germans". Even Wilhelm II said on occasion that "Slavs are born to serve other nations". (p 45)

The policy of German government brought the desired results. In the years 1870-1910 the Prussian official statistics noted 70% of raise of Germans in West Prussia and 58% in Posen, 12,2% in East Prussia and 56,3% in Opole. For comaprison, in Posen number of Poles raised by 27,8%, in Opole in 32,4%, and was lowered in Eastern Prussia by 12% and in Western Prussia by 5,8%. All the censuses are generally in low esteem by Polish historians, because they forced Poles to declare themselves as bilingual or using only German, for example all Polish soldiers were counted as Germans. In Namyslow count in SIlesia in 1910 it was reported that only those Poles who admitted that they know no German were listed as Poles, and the rest as Germans. he separate case is so called "battle for land". It was started by Flotwell, who however was able to bought only 30 large Polish estates. The legal basis for later actions was 1886 June law of "strengthening the Germanness in provinces West Prussia and Posen", in short "Ansiedlungsgesetz", the Settlement law. Those act, plus later novelisations (including 1912 "the law of strengthening Germanness in some parts of the country" etc) included for example that Poles in countryside can build new buildings only after receving speciall allowance from German administration, which effectively caused that Poles could not build new buildings (famous Drzymala wagon case), made legal basis for confiscating Polish land and allotted large sums for buying out olish land, e.g 100.000 mk in 1886. The funds of Settlement Comission achieved 955 millions mk, plus another funds from economical activity, in total about 1423 millions mk. However, because Poles - as results of well-known "longest war of modern Europe" were boycotting the action en masse, the commission finally was mainly buying the land from.. Germans (the total of 71.2% in 1910 and 1913 71.3%). Frustrated Germans: the organisations, profesors such as Otto Hotzsch, local admi nistration etc postulated that the law should be passed which would allow to buy the land without the agreement from Polish owner. Such law was passed in 1908, march 20. Protests from around the world (the actions initiated by Polish writer Henryk Sienkiewicz, who convinced many intellectuals to sign letters of protests, the protests by some Germans etc) caused that first actions based on such law were in 1912, when 4 Polish estates were bought despite the protests of the owners. The First World War stopped such actions. (p52-5Cool

The new settlers received credits for new buildings and starting new life, etc etc. Sometimes the Commission was using low-moral Poles, who were buying the land from other Poles who otherwise were refusing to sell it to Germans; The official end of the Comission was 1 June 1924.

In addition there were other, non-government (though with government's blessing and backing) institutions which were giving credits on favourable terms, buing land and encouraging German settlement, and so called "land organisations" (Landgesellchaft) which were creating new large farms, with sepcific official goal of separating Poles and dissoluting Polish "element". (p28-66)

As mentioned earlier, Poles needed special allowance for making new building in countryside. In 1905-1913 in region of Bydgoszcz 78% of all petitions were refused (1904, 10 VIII, ansiedlungsnovelle). In some regions Poles had to provide the documents testifying, that they won't sell the building to other Pole, or that their investment is not violating the "settlement law modification" (mentioned ansiedlungsnovelle).

The name "battle for land" came becasue Poles started to defend, the organisations for helping were created by Poles, and both Germans and Poles tried to buy as much land as possible. The successes of Polish private organisation resulted in protulates by German newspapers for passing the law (Berliner Borsen-Zeitung 22 May 1907) which would made illegall the assistance to buying the land by private institutions. Suprisingly, the most sold land came from rich Poles, while the ones who were most active in propaganda and less eager to sell the land were sometimes the poorest ones...

As the result, in Posen majority of rural area (almost 60%) was in the hands of Germans (p74)

The German and public banks were refusing providing the credit for Poles, either directly or by making conditions which were highly discouraging, especially when compared to conditions offered to Germans. Sometimes they were gicing the credit, only suddenly demand everything back. Simultanously goverment was backing favourable credits for "strenghtening the German economy" in eastern provinces. The government was subsidising the self-help organisation, but since 1908 only on conditions, that such organisation will remove all Polish members. (p81)

There were also non-returnable subsidies paid by government (Niederlassungsbeihilfe), organisations such as HKT etc - all of which should result in limiting Polish economy and domination of Germans in economy of eastern provinces.

German soldiers were OFFICIALLY forbidden from goinf to Polish friseurs, German public institutions from delegating works and repairments to Polish companies etc. German organisations were printing works such as "Guide for German shops in Posen".

OTOH, Polish organisation had their meetings monitored and sometimes disbanded because of using of Polish lanugage; they could were refused from hiring the rooms etc etc. The economical boycott was from both sides. Both for the Poles and Germans it was patriotic duty to buy only from their nationalities. It was started by Poles, true, and later the German slogans were usually simply translations of earlier Polish ones, but the Poles, contrary to Germans, had not the backing of government. (p90)

Also :

History 1871-1939 Warszawa 2000 dr.Anna Radziwił prof.dr.hab Wojciech Roszkowski

Anna Radziwil-vicemnister of education in Poland, senator,history teacher, director of several Gymnasiums in Warsaw Wojciech Roszkowski-director of Institute of Political Studies PAN, lecturer in Main Trade School,Collegium Civitas, gives lectures in United States Universities, author of several works from history of Poland and the world.

Page 80. The fight against Polishness had a widespread range-it touched political sphere, national-cultural sphere, as well as economic one, and was led thru legal methods, by "law". You could process with Prussian authorities-something unthinkable in Russian part of partitoned Poland, where such an attempt would end in arrest or deportation. Intesification of the fight against Polishness happened after unification of Germany.(1871), when nationalistic(pangerman) feelings rose, whos representant was von Bismarck.This fight was led mostly in Grand Duchy of Poznan which was renamed Posen Province.Polish population had majority there(60 %) and had its own strong intelectual elites.On other lands of Prussian partition of Poland for example Pomerania Poles were minority and hadn't got strong intelectual elites.In Upper Silesia the few polish intelectuals for example Karol Miarka-who discovered his polish roots as an adult men-tried to preserve or even resurrect Polishness of the common people. In Poznan the fight with Polishness and about Polish culture took many forms.It was a fight over land, language and Church.In this fight the whole Polish society took part, both its upper classes, as well as peasents, which led to creation of GrandPolish ethos(etos wielkopoznanski)-which was made of interclass solidarity, strong connection to catholicism-the mark of being a Pole, and patriotic justified ability to selforganise and development. Centralne Towarzystwo Gospodarcze-existing from 1861, peasent circles, many forms of communes,peoples banks, and also Towarzystwo Czytelni Ludowych(Society of Reading for the Folk), singing societies-created an social infrastucture, which opposed the germanisation offensive.Gen. Dezydery Chlapowski,Maksymilian Jackowski, Roman Szymanski, priest Piotr Wawrzyniak were great patrons of these forms of national activity of Grand Polish society(...) Quite unexpectly a hero of the fight against german policy was to become archbishop of Gniezno Mieczyslwaw Ledóchowski, who at first period of his activity cut himself off from Polish activities.In 1872 however Bismarck started to pursue Kulturkampf policy.According to this priests were turned away from education for example.In schools german language was made compulsory apart from religion.Government wanted to have say in who will become who in church hierarchy.Civil marriages have become compulsory, and made of course only by german. officials.Ledóchowski who opposed this was arrested in 1874.This merging of fight against Catholicism with figh against Poles created in Polish society a feeling of identity between being a Pole and being a Catholic.It was then when the stereotype of "Polish Catholic" was created.Bismarck retreated from the most severe laws of Kulturkampf in late 70s.However antipolish legislation remained in place, and in 80s German government conducted another offensive.New steps of German government intended to increase number of Germans in polish partition and increase of the land controled by Germans and wanted a more efficient Germanisation policy.This fight was planned at beginning by Bismarck.In 1885 a measure called Rugi Pruskie was made-compulsory deportation of all polish workers who didn't get Prussian citizenship.They were repeated in following years.The first ones afflicted 26 000 people.In 1886 Colonisation Commision was made which had funds from Government and was to buyout land from Poles, and conduct settlement action of German settlers. After Bismarck left in 1890 policy of new chancellor seemed to indicate lessening of antipolish measures, but his followers intensified antipolish actions. --Molobo 13:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And? Does one cherrypicked source on persecution of Poles (copyvio?) change the impression in regard to its overstatement in the article? Of course it doesn't and you know it. NightBeAsT 14:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Define cherrypicked.Seems again you are simply refusing to acknowledge any source you don't like because it doesn't support your POV. --Molobo 14:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, at least take a look at de:Bismarck and de:Germanisierung. --Revvar 18:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry but I don't use German very well.This is English wiki and please use English or translations.From the looks of it though these articles lack essential information found easly in Polish history books as well as other German history websites or even German articles.If you are active on German wiki why don't you translate this quote of Bismarck to German for me-it seems it isn't there: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can." Otto von Bismarck --Molobo 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.preussen-chronik.de/_/thema_jsp/key=thema_%2584verpreu%25dfung%2593+-+die+politik+preu%25dfens+gegen%25fcber+den+polnisc.html r. Denn trotz Protesten der polnischen Abgeordneten werden die Provinzen Posen und Westpreußen ins deutsche Reichsgebiet eingegliedert, ohne dabei ihre nationalen Interessen zu berücksichtigen. Das Problem Preußens mit den polnischen Provinzen wird nun zur nationalen deutsch-polnischen Frage, das Klima zwischen Deutschen und Polen rauher. Bereits 1863 hatte Bismarck mit der militärischen Hilfeleistung für Rußland bei der Niederschlagung des Januaraufstandes unter Beweis gestellt, daß er zu keinerlei Zugeständnissen in der Polenfrage bereit sei. Sein Kampf gegen die „ Reichsfeinde“ nach 1871 umfaßt daher nicht nur Maßnahmen gegen sozialrevolutionäre Tendenzen, sondern auch die nationalen Sonderbestrebungen im Reich, zu denen vor allem die Polen zu zählen sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der von Bismarck in den siebziger Jahren inszenierte „Kulturkampf“ zu betrachten, der sich in bezug auf Polen im Besonderen gegen den katholischen Klerus richtet. Der Entzug der Schulaufsicht und zahlreiche Verhaftungen von Geistlichen der römisch-katholischen Kirche mobilisieren breite Schichten der polnischen Bevölkerung und verstärken die antideutsche Haltung. Diese Frontstellung kann auch der preußischen Regierungsseite nicht gänzlich unbekannt bleiben und so entwirft ein Bromberger Regierungspräsident 1885 in seiner Denkschrift ein sehr kritisches Bild der Situation in der Provinz Posen: „Man muß sich vor allen Dingen der Illusion entschlagen, daß es möglich sei, die polnischen tonangebenden Kreise durch Konzessionen irgendwelcher Art zu gewinnen... Die Polen besitzen volles Verständnis für eine zielbewuáte und rücksichtslose Politik; in jedem Entgegenkommen der Machthaber aber erblicken sie nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche... Die Polen wollen kein friedliches, gleichberechtigtes Zusammenleben mit den Deutschen. Sie wollen Hammer oder Amboß sein.“ Diese Stimmung ist nicht ganz unerheblich für die atmosphärische Situation in Deutschland, schließlich stellen die Polen mit einem Anteil von 10% an der preußischen Bevölkerung die größte nationale Minderheit im Reich dar. Daher muß Bismarck gegen Ende der siebziger Jahre seinen Kulturkampf einstellen, die germanisierende Sprachenpolitik wird jedoch fortgeführt. --Molobo 15:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't get it and yet I couldn't care less. You can flood the page with no matter how many cherrypicked sources but it still doesn't change the fact that you're making a fuss of it. "Ausgrenzung nationaler Minderheiten
Im deutschen Nationalstaat von 1871 gab es auch nicht deutsche Bevölkerungsgruppen wie die dänischen, polnischen und französische Minderheiten. Ebenso wie Bismarck den Katholizismus und die Sozialisten zu "Reichsfeinden" erklärte und damit aus der Gesellschaft ausgegrenzt hatte, enthielt er auch den nationalen Minderheiten die gesellschaftliche Integration vor: Er verweigerte ihnen politische Mitwirkung und gesellschaftliche Anerkennung und undersagte weitgehend die Pflege ihrer Kultur, Religion und Sprache.

Translation:Exclusion of national minorities
In the German nation state of 1871, there were also non-German sections of the population like the Danish, Polish and French minorities. Just as Bismarck declared Catholicism and Socialists as "Enemies of the Empire" and by doing so excluded them from society, he also withold sociatal integretation from the national minorities: he denied them political involvement and societal recognition and largely refused their maintenance of culture, religion and language.

Now if you don't trust me on it and it is no copyvio to do this, I'll scan and upload the page. On the basis of the text, the summary "Non-German sections of population in the German Empire, like the Danish, Polish and French minorities, were withhold by Bismarck from societal integretation." is reflecting and while I'm still worried that a one-sentence summary of a three-sentence text would make it necessary to summarize all other text for this chapter by 1:3, which would blow the whole era out of proportion to the other chapters of German history, it should make a compromise that if rejected will result only in the complete halt of these appeasement policies. Could someone who doesn't have a narrow-minded perspective on the Polish part in the German Empire please substitute for Molobo? NightBeAsT 16:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

NB yes, you already spoke that your book lacks much information.However they are many more history books then the one you presented.Fortunetly you have much more sources(see above) to use that detail the events more clearly.

--Molobo 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I spoke what? No, Molobo, you're twisting my words again. If a history book doesn't write that Mr Hans Müller ate a sandwich in 1876, it doesn't mean it lacks this piece of information, it just doesn't found it noteworthy. Oh, there sure are many history books but when I open my newest that my old history teacher spoke highly of it, and I see that what you're doing mirrors the proportion of it less and less, you can even post whatever you cherrypicked and I'm still not convinced. See, you're just like a descendant of Mr Hans Müller: you might be able prove that Mr Hans Müller ate his sandwich but that it would not be an overstatement to cast it into the article is of course something you cannot prove. NightBeAsT 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. You can flood the page with no matter how many cherrypicked sources but it still doesn't change the fact that you're making a fuss of it Have you got something against my sources ? Why do you call them cherripicked.It seems you aren't serious and don't want to addres the issue by pushing your POV while at the same time ignoring every source(and by now we have a great number of them) that discredits your POV. --Molobo 17:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've something against the way you're choosing "your" sources, I've something against your POV-pushing, I've something against dumb distractions like "Have you got something against my sources". Read my previous edit (with an open mind). NightBeAsT 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've something against dumb distractions like "Have you got something against my sources" Again a personal attack NB.And an unfounded one.Address the source if you believe its wrong.So far you have been unable to prove so.--Molobo 19:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

...

I could just as well read what experts in German history offer. NightBeAsT 19:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I already provided you with material written by historians like Anna Radziwił that confirm Kulturkampf was involve in persecution of Poles.You seem no to know Kulturkampf didn't involve just German history but Polish history as well since it was made towards Polish people on territory of Poland taken by German in Partitions. --Molobo 21:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Not being Polish or German, I do agree that Bismarck's policies toward Poland and the German territories generally in the Kulturkampf are a significant part of German history (especially when we consider what Germany's policies and attitudes toward Poland eventually triggered...), but it needs to be introduced in a way that flows with the text and is not sensational. Nightbeast, I agree the tone of Molobo's addition is POV, but where exactly would "German historians" disagree with the general argument? Why don't we just have a basic mention here and do most of the expansion in the Kulturkampf article? Tfine80 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Tfine80, I do not think Bismarck's policies towards Poles are part of the Kulturkampf, as that is only defined as the fight against Catholicism. If in the Schulaufsichtsgesetz the state also used the power taken from the Catholic Church for an attempt at imposing the German language and culture, rather than the Polish, I do not count it as part of the fight against the Church but all who did count it as part of the Kulturkampf were already probably accumulated here or on talk:Kulturkampf by Molobo. Still, if I open a history book, Kulturkampf is defined as fight against Catholicism and the treatment of national minorities is a different chapter of little text, which tells me that it is most irrelevant and that impression hasn't changed. I didn't misunderstand what you mean by 'general argument', did I? NightBeAsT 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While it may not be central to the definition of Kulturkampf, it is not "irrelevant." It is not some section of obscure, "little text" -- it is a major part of Polish history. Search for something like poland and kulturkampf on print.google.com, you will see that this is a major subject of academic discussion. Also, here's an entire book entitled "The Kulturkampf in Prussian Poland" published by Columbia University Press. [1] Catholicism is central to Polish culture, so it's not so surprising that this effort would have national and cultural dimensions. But I agree that it should not have a large mention in the article of History of Germany. Tfine80 22:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

@Molobo: "why don't you translate this quote of Bismarck to German for me" - I hope you know that Bismarck was speaking german ;-) ? give me the original german statement, and i will try to translate it into english for you. --Revvar 08:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Haut doch die Polen, dass sie am Leben verzagen. Ich habe alles Mitgefuehl fuer ihre Lage, aber wir koennen, wenn wir bestehn wollen, nichts andres thun, als sie aurotten; der Wolf kann nicht dafuer, dass er von Gott geschaffen ist, wie er ist, und man schiesst ihn doch dafuer todt, wenn man kann. --Molobo 10:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. But you forget a small detail. Bismarck wrote this within a private letter to his sister. Call him an uncaring person, but this was not his policy. You can only destroy a culture if you kill the people. But Bismarck tried to alter ("überformen") the polish culture. He misbelief that he can "change" the polish people to be more like germans, to stabilize his power and stop the polish efforts to independence. He needs the polish people and he didn't wants to destroy them.--Revvar 13:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Call him an uncaring person, but this was not his policy. At the time this was his attitude towards minority he later ruled over, which allowed him to change the attitude into policy which we know as Kulturkampf. He needs the polish people and he didn't wants to destroy them. Physically definatly no, however he wants to destroy their culture,language, traditions.Which in effects means destruction as as a national group. Similar plans have been made towards certain groups of Poles during Nazi regime. --Molobo 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Bismarck wrote this within a private letter to his sister. And does it change anything ? It speaks of his attitude and motivations-would you ignore what Hitler wrote about Jews if it was in his private letter before he gained power ?--Molobo 17:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your interpretation. [2] is a different. NightBeAsT 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And the reaction of Przewoznik-Polish government official responsible for oversight of such monuments was to forbid it.Anyway its a bizarre argument, they are many controversial monuments proposed by many societies. --Molobo 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Like anyone cared about the monument... NightBeAsT 20:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks also NB for providing further opinion that Bismarck pursued antipolish policy during Kulturkapmf from the very same article you cited: Bismarck gilt in Polen als "Polenfresser". Wenn Polen auf den deutschen Reichseiniger zu sprechen kommen wird gerne ein Zitat aus einem Bismarck-Schreiben an seine Schwester Alwine zitiert: "Haut doch die Polen, daß sie am Leben verzagen. Wir können, wenn wir bestehen wollen, nichts anderes tun, als sie ausrotten." Bismarck hat eine solche Politik freilich nie praktiziert. Sein Kulturkampf gegen den Katholizismus wird in Polen allerdings noch heute als Krieg gegen das Polentum verstanden. Verhaftungen katholischer Geistlicher bis hin zum polnischen Primas waren allerdings ein wesentlicher Baustein zur Geschlossenheit der polnischen Nation. Eine Geschlossenheit, die es in Polen über Jahrhunderte nicht gegeben hatte. --Molobo 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, if you want it translated, all you need to do is ask for it, not pretend to misunderstand it. Bismarck is seen in Poland as "Pole-eater". When Poles are talking about the German Empire-uniter, a quotation of one of Bismarck's writing to his sister Alwine is liked to be cited: "Haut doch die Polen, daß sie am Leben verzagen. Wir können, wenn wir bestehen wollen, nichts anderes tun, als sie ausrotten." Bismarck has never practicised such politics, of course. His fight against Catholicism, however, is seen in Poland as war against Polonism up until today. Imprisonments of Catholic clergymen up to the Polish Primate, however, were an essential building block for the unity of the Polish nation. A unity that hasn't existed in Poland for centuries. NightBeAsT 20:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.szon.de/news/kultur/aktuell/200510110731.html?_from=rss

Polnische Dorfbewohner sollen über Bismarck-Denkmal entscheiden

Warschau (dpa) Mitten im polnischen Dauerwahlkampf müssen die Einwohner des masurischen Dorfes Nakomiad eine zusätzliche «historische» Entscheidung treffen: Darf in dem Dorf im früheren Ostpreußen an den «Eisernen Kanzler» Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) erinnert werden?

An diesem Mittwoch soll auf einem Dorftreffen entschieden werden, ob ein Bismarck-Obelisk auf dem Dorfplatz bleiben darf oder entfernt werden muss, meldete die polnische Nachrichtenagentur PAP. Slawomir Jarosik, Gemeindevorstand im nahe gelegenen Ketrzyn, empfand den Kanzler-Obelisken bisher nicht als Stein des Anstoßes.

Die Regionalbehörden und der Rat zur Pflege nationaler Gedenkstätten sehen das allerdings anders. In der heutigen Zeit sei kein Platz für das Denkmal des Kanzlers, der «alle Erscheinungen des Polentums bekämpft hat», betonte Andrzej Przewoznik, der Sekretär des Rates.

Das Bismarck-Denkmal war Jahrzehnte lang verschüttet gewesen. Erst vor einiger Zeit ließ der Gemeindevorstand das 1899 errichtete Denkmal wieder freilegen, säubern und erneut aufstellen. «Es geht nicht darum, Bismarck zu glorifizieren» verteidigte sich Jarosik. Er habe das Denkmal vor allem als Kulturgut und Mittel zur Dorfverschönerung gesehen. Nach der Aufregung der Regionalbehörden sollten nun die Dorfbewohner das letzte Wort haben, sagte er. «Wenn die Gemeinschaft sagt, sie will das Denkmal nicht, entfernen wir es wieder.»--Molobo 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Ausrotten means in regards to people

An interesting analysis of this German word.It was repeated by Himmler in relation to Jews : http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml Holocaust-deniers claim that there never was a Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe. They find it very difficult to explain away this speech, given in Poznan (also spelled "Posen") -- in which Heinrich Himmler talks about the "extermination of the Jewish people" and says quite frankly "we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them."

In order to discount this speech, Holocaust-deniers will object to its translation. So the reader should pause to read Himmler's exact words:

German English

Ich meine die "Judenevakuierung": die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people Following are two examples of Holocaust denial, then comes the third which somehwat Revvar used in his sentence: " You can only destroy a culture if you kill the people. But Bismarck tried to alter ("überformen") the polish culture." Here is what the sight says on the word : Third, they argue, the word "Ausrottung" does not actually mean "extermination," but instead "forced emigration" or "deportation." For example, David Irving has said this:

   Irving claims that it really means "stamping out" or "rooting out."

"Mistranslation" is the main argument and it is easy to dismantle. There are other claims besides these (and they all tend to contradict each other, just as these main three do). But these are the primary three. So let's take a close look at our translation, particularly of this word "Ausrottung." The verb "ausrotten" or its noun "Ausrottung," in the context of living things, refers to killing -- and not just killing, but an especially thorough destruction, a way of eradicating something so that it can never come back. It is usually translated "extermination," and while that perhaps misses the character of the utter and irrevocable annihilation of "Ausrottung," it is probably the best English translation. The Holocaust-denier argument will be that "Ausrottung" refers merely to deportation of the Jews, not killing them. ourth, every good German dictionary confirms that "ausrotten," applied to living things, means killing, extermination, destruction. Here's Sprach-Brockhaus, 1972, defining the noun form "Ausrottung":

Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildwörterbuch, 1972, F.A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden, p. 49 die Ausrottung, völlige Vernichtung die Ausrottung: völlige Vernichtung.

"Völlige Vernichtung" means "complete annihilation."

Holocaust-deniers usually go on to say that "ausrotten" has changed meaning since the war. (David Irving, for example, has tried this tactic, writing "The word ausrotten means one thing now in 1994, but it meant something very different in the time Adolf Hitler uses it.")

So let's check the same dictionary from 1935:

Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildwörterbuch, 1935, F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, p. 38 die Ausrottung, völlige Vernichtung die Ausrottung: völlige Vernichtung.

The only change is the typeface.

But the Sprach-Brockhaus is a small dictionary, providing not much context. Let's look at a more complete dictionary, the Muret-Sanders. This one is also German-to-English, so it will be most useful to English speakers (who will be the only ones confused by this word).

Here are its translations from 1906 and 1974:

Muret-Sanders enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache, Teil II: Deutsch-english, 1906, Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin-Schöneberg, p. 213 ausrotten, exterminate ausrotten: I. 1. Unkraut [weeds]: to root out or up, to outroot, to uproot ... Volksstämme [races], Wölfe [wolves]: to exterminate. 2. fig. Mißbräuche [abuses]: to extirpate, eradicate, deracinate, auch: to weed out; (zerstören, vernichten) to destroy, annihilate. II. das Ausrotten, die Ausrottung: rooting out, &c; fig. extirpation, extermination, deracination, destruction. Ausrotter: extirpator, exterminator, &c; weeder-out; destroyer. Ausrottungskrieg: war of extermination

Der neue Muret-Sanders Langenscheidts enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache, Teil II: Deutsch-englisch, 1974, Druckhaus Langenscheidt, Berlin-Schöneberg, 1974 ausrotten, exterminate ausrotten: I. 1. (Unkraut [weeds] etc.) uproot, tear (od. pull) (s.th.) up by the roots, root (s.th.) up. 2. (Volk [a people], Rasse [race], etc.) exterminate, wipe out, extirpate: diese Krankheit rottete die ganze Bevölkerung aus this disease wiped out the entire population; die Urbevölkerung des Landes wurde ausgerottet the native population of the country was exterminated (od. killed off); etwas mit Stumpf und Stiel ausrotten auch fig. to destroy s.th. root and branch. 3. (Tiere [animals]) extirpate. 4. (Übel [evils] etc) eradicate, stamp out, root out, extirpate, exterminate: ein Vorurteil ausrotten to eradicate a prejudice; eine Krankheit ausrotten to stamp (od. wipe) out a disease; dieses Übel muß man mit der Wurzel ausrotten this evil must be uprooted; diese Unsitte ist nich auszurotten this bad habit is ineradicable. [...] Ausrottung: 1. cf. Ausrotten. 2. (eines Volkes [of a people], einer Rasse [of a race] etc) extermination, extirpation: systematische Ausrottung von Völkern [systematic Ausrottung of a people] (od. eines Volkes [of a people]) genocide. 3. (von Tieren [animals]) extirpation. 4. fig. eradication, extermination, extirpation. 5. med. (eines Tumors [of a tumor] etc) extirpation, eradication.

All this detail confirms one simple truth. The word means killing when discussing living things, such as Unkraut (weeds), Volksstämme, Volk, Rasse (a race), Wolfe (wolves), Tiere (animals), or Tumors (tumors). Don't be confused by the second half of the 1906 dictionary definition, which quickly roughs in the noun form "Ausrottung." The smart reader will deduce the meaning from the verb form, which is given in detail for each context, and will only need the noun form to confirm the range of possible meanings. Which of those meanings to pick -- extirpation, extermination, deracination, destruction -- can be determined by the contexts given with the verb. Just because they are all listed together does not mean that a reader should cherry-pick one meaning out of context.

And don't be confused by the translation "extirpate." While it is not a common English word, it has a simple meaning: "to destroy completely; to pull up by the root; to cut out by surgery; synonym: see exterminate" (Merriam-Webster).

So when does "ausrotten" not mean literally killing? Only when applied to things which cannot be literally killed.

When applied to Mißbräuchen (abuses) or Übel (evils), obviously there can be no actual ending of life, because ideas are not alive, except metaphorically. In these contexts, ausrotten still means complete destruction, but it is best translated with terms like "stamp out," "deracinate," or "eradicate," which are more appropriate for describing the annihilation of an idea.

Holocaust-deniers will sometimes cherry-pick the most harmless-sounding translation from a figurative context, and pretend that is how Himmler was literally describing the fate of the Jews. Don't be fooled.

Or they will choose a definition that is specifically for the context of Unkraut (weeds), and say that the Jews were simply being "uprooted," which has a milder meaning for people. (But think: how does one kill a weed completely, so it can never return?)

Or they will pretend to be German etymologists and analyze each syllable of the word. While "aus" and "rotten" are cognate with English "out" and "root," the compound word has had its present meaning, and no other, since the 15th century.

Saying "aus-rotten" combines to mean "up-root" makes as much sense as an American denier claiming that the Latin roots "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) combine into "ex-terminate"... meaning "deportation." Huh? If you as an English reader just did a double-take, that is how a German reader would react to misreading "ausrotten" as "uprooting" human beings. It's just wrong. --Molobo 20:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So even if Bismarck couldn't kill off all the Poles, he certainly confessed to desiring so in his letter to his sister.Such an attitude from one of the most important German politicians in XIX century and as NB showed remebered in Poland, certainly deserves to be inserted into article for the sake of historical accuracy. --Molobo 20:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I do not know what you've just spammed the talk page with but I wonder whether it is okay from the point of view of copyright to do so. Is it? NightBeAsT 20:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so.Perhaps you should ask authors of the online site if it is right to cite fragments of their text when talking about roots of German Reich ideology.Let me know what they tell you ok ? --Molobo 20:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

I post here to ask for someone to mediate in the dispute with Molobo. Having seen Shauri extend offers of friendship to Molobo and to be met by utter hate and the guilt by association fallacy, and myself having tried in vain to communicate with him, I have come to the conclusion that I have no other way to handle Molobo, as of now, but to revert him.--Wiglaf 00:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons

As far as I'm concerned, the reasons for reversion rely on relevance, neutrality and no original reasearch issues. The fact that such a large and detailed paragraph on the disputed matter is inserted here is unappropriate, as it deals with a very specifical issue that (in the extremely large time scope covered by the article) serves no relevant purpose. These claims belong in the Kulturkampf article, not in the History of Germany one. Such article is the proper context for the contents that are being intended to push here. As for neutrality, I think that statements like the one I reverted today by Tirid Tirid, "...Especially the Poles, hated by Bismarck who compered (compared?) them to wolfs, that one shoots..." are beyond the slightest consideration, and are borderline to vandalism. Last but not least, we're witnessing a debate on terminological issues and original interpretations that are not allowed as contents of a WP article.

I have no intention to debate on Kulturkampf matters, but as Tfine80 has aptly put it, "just hav(ing) a basic mention here and most of the expansion in the Kulturkampf article" is exactly what is suggested by the WP guidelines and rules regarding relevance. Said mention already exists without the unnecessary detail (on this context) on the alleged anti-Polonist policies of Bismark, and I quote the article: "Non-German sections of population in the German Empire, like the Danish, Polish and French minorities, were withhold (withheld?) by Bismarck from societal integretation. (integration?)" I thus invite everyone involved with the contents dispute at this Page not to abort the debate, but to move it to the proper article. Regards, Shauri smile! 15:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] News: German Wiki Notice Board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSDAP

"The two biggest enemies of the new democratic order, however, had already been constituted. In December 1918, the German Communist Party (KPD) was founded, followed in January 1919 by the establishment of the German Workers' Party, later known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). Both parties would make reckless use of the freedoms guaranteed by the new constitution in their fight against the Weimar Republic." This implies that the NSDAP was one of the two greatest threats to the Weimar Government. This is not true though. The nazis were just one of many extremist parties in the 1920s and certinatly weren't on par with the KPD

SMI

[edit] Link to German History in Documents and Images (GHDI)

The German Historical Institute is currently curating an online project entitled German History in Documents and Images (GHDI). GHDI is a comprehensive collection of primary source materials documenting Germany's political, social, and cultural history from 1500 to the present. It comprises original German texts, all of which are accompanied by new English translations, and a wide range of visual imagery. All of the materials can be accessed free of charge for teaching, research, and related purposes; the site is strictly intended for individual, non-commercial use. Some of the volumes are already completed and might be a good addition to this website. Would it be possible to include a link to our project? www.germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org Thanks, 207.152.160.186 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to go further back in time

NOTE: I have copied this thread from Talk:German exodus from Eastern Europe because it is not relevant to that article. This article is the best place I can think of to have this discussion. --Richard 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have studied that the German people themselves originally arose as distinct Indo-European people millennia before 0 CE near the headwaters of the Elbe river. I do not see such information at all in Wikipedia at all, just does not seem to go back that far. I think this will need to be stated … something I hope I might be able to add as long as the references line up as my time permits. Nonprof. Frinkus 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the above post, I sloughed it off as irrelevant to the German exodus from Eastern Europe article (which it is). However, upon re-reading it, I am appreciating that there may be a valid point. If you look at the History of Germany article, it starts at about the 6th or 8th century A.D. If Nonprof. Frinkus wishes information about Germanic tribes before the 6th century A.D. to be included in Wikipedia, we will probably have to start a new article titled something like History of the German people or Prehistory of the German people. I am going to copy this thread to Talk:History of Germany.

--Richard 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Framework for articles related to the history of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe

The following is an excerpt of a discussion between myself and and User:Lysy that took place on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II last October. The entire discussion can be found in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive9 in the section titled "Merge to German exodus from Eastern Europe ?"

I am reviving this discussion thread for two reasons:

1. I want to ask whether there is interest in having an article titled History of Germans in Eastern Europe. This would be a "grand overview" article which would provide a very broad overview of the history of Germans in Eastern Europe from 300AD until the present. There would be quite a number of subsidiary articles as laid out in the framework presented by Lysy below.
2. I want to ask your opinion of the specific article titles proposed in the framework below.

NB: I'm not sure that we need to have two separate articles titled Expulsion of Germans during World War II and Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Right now both of these topics are covered in the article Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I think that Lysy's motivation is that certain POV-pushing editors insist that any deaths due to evacuation, flight and expulsions occurring before the end of the war not be included in statistics related to expulsions occuring after the end of the war.

[Excerpted discussion from October 2006 follows]

So the article tree could be something like:

• History of Germans in Eastern Europe
  • History of German settlement in Eastern Europe (1000-1945)
    • Ostsiedlung
    • Drang nach Osten
    • Colonisation 1938-1944
  • German exodus from Eastern Europe (1918-1990)
    • Emigration (1918-1939)
    • Evacuation and flight (1944-1945)
    • Expulsion of Germans during World War II (1945)
    • Expulsion of Germans after World War II
    • Post-war emigration

--Lysy^talk 04:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like the above outline with two modifications. First of all, I believe that some of the "emigration" was due to negotiated "population transfers". If possible, that title should be changed to reflect that. Secondly, I dislike the title "Post-war emigration" because it doesn't leave much room to discuss the Germans who stayed. Admittedly, these residual German populations are small and perhaps dwindling but they are still there and so I would prefer that the title be something like "History of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe after World War II". This title can cover both emigration and the residual German populations.

Finally, while History of Germans in Eastern Europe is OK with me, what do you think of History of ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe? This uses the distinction in German between Deutsche and Volksdeutsche. English readers who are unfamiliar with this distinction won't really focus that much on the "ethnic German" bit but people who are familiar with the distinction will understand what is being referenced and why.

--Richard 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have explained that I was not sure about their names of some articles and therefore I've left them unlinked, unlike the more obvious ones. Therefore I agreed with your comment on the "emigration" already before you wrote it ...

On the second note, Germans make the largest ethnic minority of modern Poland, so you are right that this was missing here.

Finally, could you elaborate a bit more on the importance of "ethnic" word ? BTW: Volksdeutsche in Poland and Germany have quite different connotations. --Lysy^talk 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[End excerpt of discussion thread from October 2006]

Your thoughts on the above discussion are welcomed.

--Richard 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

I am a student, and I noticed that a non-logged-in user edited the Opposition to Iraq section. The last sentance is now nothing more than personal opinion. It also has horrid grammer and spelling. Will someone KNOWLEDGABLE please fix it to a section more appropriate to wikipedia? Thank You from a student who regularly uses Wikipedia and depends on it for reliable information. // —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.180.41 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 April 2007

Above Archived

FrankB 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)