Talk:West Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] West Germany

I am uneasy that the title of this page is West Germany, when this was purely an Anglophonic euphamism. The proper name (before and after reunification) is Bundesrepublic Deutschland which translates to English as 'Federal Republic of Germany'.--Timdownie 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

there is a corresponding article on the German wiki, which deals more with the various usages of the term. Agathoclea 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
We already have an article Federal Republic of Germany which redirects to Germany. (It's pretty much standard that an article with the official name of a state redirects to the article with the "everyday" name of the state - compare United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which redirects to United Kingdom). The article Germany is about the modern state of Germany (and also its predecessor states) and carries lots of info re: the history of the FRG; this article is quite clearly about the term "West Germany" and its usage in English. Valiantis 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the first poster (see below). Whilst this article does provide context about (the former) West Germany, it needs to be remembered that the West German state absorbed the East German state, whilst continuing to exist. It is thus the same country. (RM21 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC))


Accordingly moved to Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990), which is proper, but I think Germany (1949-1990) is better. The GDR did not even call itself Germany, and in hindsight does not quite deserve to be a reason why the 11-state FRG of 1949-1990 should not be regarded as "the Germany". After all, we call the 16-state FRG now Germany, even though the area is still smaller than in former times. -- Matthead discuß!     O       05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


In the context of the below discussion "POV or fact" I'll add another comment here because it's really about the same subject.
The GDR called itself "Deutsch" and many of its official institutions contained the term "Deutschland" in their names. For the first two decades of its existance, East Germany viewed itself as a German national state, it strived for reunification by incorporating West Germany into the GDR, and claimed to represent "the true Germany". The interpretations of the two Germanies were symmetrical, at the same time mutually exclusive. There's no reason to present one of the two views as "more true" than the other. From a broader perspective the symmetry is the most striking feature.
For completeness sake: The GDR changed its view completely since the early 1970s, that's when the symmetry ended. Anorak2 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree to this renaming of the lemma. In 1949-1990 Germany [as a whole] in its borders of 1937 consisted of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG during 1949-1990) and the German Democratic Republic. Both were German states and international legal personalities, but there was only one Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany from 1949-1990 was part-identical to the German Reich because of the field of application of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and geographical scope. By the German reunification, the Federal Republic, accreted by its territory, became subject identical to the German Reich (= Germany as a whole).
That symmetry could not ever be changed because the German Reich never ceased to exist! There's no evidence in history or international law that claimed, the German Reich ended and two new states and international legal personalities whould be established. --Orangerider 08:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Infobox and categories

The template Infobox Former Country and the categories Former countries in Europe, Former federations, Former republics and 1990 disestablishments are misleading, because the Federal Republic of Germany still exists. It wasn't disestablished in 1990. "West Germany" was only the unofficial name of the Federal Republic until 1990. In 1990 East Germany joined the Federal Republic, but this really doesn't mean that the Federal Republic was disestablished. Blinder Seher 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to article 'Germany'

This article should merge with the current Germany article. This is because at one time, there were two articles: West Germany, and East Germany. Neither of these had the correct name of the country in the title, and the West Germany article was renamed, and expanded; later the East Germany article was also renamed.

It also needs to be remembered that the West German state (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) absorbed the East German state, under the relevant section of the Grundgesetz, so the German state continued in existence, right to the present day. (RM21 20:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] German reunification

... it is wrong that East Germany has become part of West Germany - at the 3rd of October 1990 East Germany as well as West Germany desisted from existing - the territory of East Germany acceded to the ambit of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany - the Basic Law was changed into the constitution of Germany.

Citius Altius Fortius 08:06, 1 July 2005 (CEST)

This information is wrong, the GDR joined the BRD under the article 23 of the Basic Law, therefore the GDR desisted from existing the BRD still exist see German Wiki and the preamble of the German Basic Law http://www.bpb.de/wissen/89EEKH,0,0,Pr%E4ambel.html. Therefore I will delete the last sentence. (sorry for my unregisteration)

[edit] Red Army / Soviet Army

Hello,

"Red Army" was officially renamed "Soviet Army" in 1946 !

WernerE, 28.2.2005

[edit] GDR

We don't use terms like "Middle Germany" and "German Democratic Republic" in English and this is the English Wikipedia. PMA 22:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Cassell's Dictionary of Modern German History" uses "German Democratic Republic" ("the formal name of the East German state of 1949-90") as does Mary Fulbrook's "20th Century Germany", and Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004 gives the translation of "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" as "German Democratic Republic", with no mention of "East Germany". Saintswithin 09:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is outrageous that PMA, a person with apparently no knowledge of Germany, is being allowed to vandalize this page and protect the vandalized version.

[edit] Haso, Germany in 1800s ???

I am doing research on my German ancestors. The surname is BUECHNER. I think they may have been from the Oldenburgh, area of Germany (Niedersachsen). When they emigrated to the USA in 1853, the ship list said that they were from "Haso" Germany/Prussia. Can anyone tell me where this little village is? Is it still a village today?

Hi Oldenburgh is likely to be Oldenburg a town near Bremen. It is next to the river Hunte. Look into wikipedia german version. Stone 09:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "BRD"

It is not correct that in West Germany the abbrevation "BRD" was used. "BRD" is GDR jargon. Therefore the use of this abbrevation was avoided in the West. (It was e.g. marked as error in school), see detailed explanation in German [[1]]. It can be seen that this is the only time when German officials interfered whith the common use of language. After unification the abbrevation is more common. If someone can formulate that in proper english that would be fine.


Being (native West) German myself, I must object to the above paragraph. The acronym "BRD" was used heavily in West Germany (much more than it is in use today, after reunification), sometimes in the pair of opposites (BRD v. DDR, as explained in the Wikipedia article), sometimes with a somewhat derogatory meaning from "leftwingers" in a broader sense (people critical of the political system at the time, which defined itself as "so very different from the DDR system" but then at times used similarly oppressive measures against "dissidents" - "Schweinestaat"). In my personal opinion, the latter use expressed an exaggeration: While West German politics did show signs of oppression, mostly to protect political and economical interests, it no means ever closely resembled the repressive DDR system and/or regime. Funnily enough, in "modern" neoliberal discussion [as of 2002 and following years] market-liberals liken the "old" BRD to the DDR for its alleged lack of "market freedom" and for offering "too much" governmental welfare. Well, what can I say - neoliberals are stoneage morons. --62.138.56.98 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with both - There was considerable use of BRD amongst the people of West-Germany, but the offical line was still not to use it as it would give official sanctioning of GDR as a seperate state. Agathoclea 12:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should clarify for the English speakers that the discouragement of the term "BRD" is an example of political correctnes, in this case though not from the "left wing". Here's some history:

  • All politics aside, "BRD" is the obvious way to abbreviate "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" in German. It has been used in West German media in the 1950s, even though it is admittedly not "official". At the same time, East German media avoided the official name of the Federal Republic altogether, instead they used the term "Westdeutschland".
  • About in the mid-1960s the GDR changed their policy. They started to use the abbreviation "BRD" and dropped the previously used "Westdeutschland". This was probably motivated in order to suggest a symmetry between the two German states (BRD vs DDR).
  • The West German media reacted to this by gradually dropping "BRD" and using the full name, or alternative ways of abbreviating ("Bundesrepublik", "BR Deutschland", "BR Dtl" or other). "Left leaning" people embraced "BRD" though.
  • In the 1970s and 80s, West German schools discouraged the use of "BRD", sometimes the use of this abbreviation was counted as a mistake and resulted in bad marks. The reasons stated differed. Often it was argued that "BRD" is not an official name (true, but so what?). But often the reason stated was "BRD" was GDR usage (most probably the real motivation, but not entirely true, and even then so what ..).
  • Since reunification, the avoidance of "BRD" has mostly become a thing of the past. You can now use the abbreviation "BRD" in public without being suspected of being a GDR sympathiser for the simple fact that there is no GDR any more. As the need for distinction between the two stated does not exist any more, "Deutschland" is now more common though. :)

Anorak2 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice summary, Anorak. I also remember the "Sponti" slogan, "Wer ARD sagt muss auch BRD sagen." ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody ever mentioned the "Bananenrepublik Deutschland" a term that got used in the 80s a lot. Agathoclea 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin

I have removed the reference to Berlin as de-jure capital. Firstly is was not a factual sentence - The "Basic Law" (bad translation btw for Grundgesetz) did not mention the capital at all (I spend all morning reading the pre-unification version I had lying around) also the close votes for Bonn and later the move to Berlin in '91 would have never allowed a constitutional change (I believe 2/3 majority is needed for those). Also checking the publications I have available here made no reference to Berlin but only to the term "provisional capital" (vorläufige Bundeshauptstadt) see "Gründung des neuen Staates 1949" published by the Bavarian Goverment pages 104-110.


The details of that though are more for the history article and not here. Agathoclea 12:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

scary that the statement that has been on here only since last September [2] has made it in all sorts of wiki-mirrors. See Bundeshauptstadt Bonn - Die Entscheidung für Bonn und die Folgen für den Föderalismus in Deutschland for reasons why Berlin could not be capital. Agathoclea 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster. I was told by a tour guide and a school teacher that a nifty bit of trivia was that the official capital of West Germany was actually Berlin, even though the seat of government was in Bonn and there was (for rather obvious reasons) no actual government situated there. It was, as they said, capital only as a technicality. 64.9.61.193 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't believe anything tour guides tell you :). Bonn was the capital of West Germany, even though its character was "provisional" in the sense that they hoped reunification would come soon and that Berlin would then once again become capital. But Berlin had no official capital status within West Germany. There was no law (constitution or otherwhise) which said so. Anorak2 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .de redirect - wrong

the de.wikipedia redirect goes to article about geographical area "western germany", not to the article about the old Federal Republic (as is the en.wikipedia article)... 199.64.72.252 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

Can we get the map to have it include West Berlin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgt Simpson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Strictly speaking West Berlin was not a part of West Germany. Agathoclea 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Federal Republic of Germany regarded Berlin as a federal state of West Germany since 1949 (see Artikel 23 GG). Blinder Seher 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well add it then 72.197.166.40 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology and map

"This image shows the Cold War alliances of Europe, with NATO in blue and the Warsaw Pact in red." Perhaps "of Europe and Turkey", or "of Europe and Asia Minor" would demonstrate more terminological exactitude.

194.46.226.41 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I have requested this page be moved back to West Germany on WP:RM as the current name is not the most common name for this territory in the relevant timeframe. Having the article at West Germany is not questioning that it is the legal direct predecessor to the current Germany (and indeed this should be clear in the text); it does not change the fact, however, that by far the most common name in English language publications for this piece of land in the relevant timeframe is West Germany. The current title also uses a non-standard disambiguation. Thirdly, the move should have been performed through the framework of WP:RM, and not on the basis of Talk:Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990)#West Germany three comments above from over a year ago (which don't even all agree!). Comparing the "what links here" pages for the current page and for West Germany makes the case clear. Knepflerle 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved it back. Although this was a good-faith move, the article has sat at "West Germany" for a long time, and there's nothing "misleading" or "informal" (see WP:COMMON) about the name; the proposed dismbiguation title, I think, would not garner a great deal of support. (In fact, German Democratic Republic really ought to be at East Germany.) ProhibitOnions (T) 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This article talks about the history of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1990 and needs to be named accordingly. East Germany redirects to the proper German Democratic Republic also. West Germany might be very common, but it is also informal and sloppy, and worst of all, is still commonly misunderstood as having being a different state that does not exist anymore. This was shown in discussions like Talk:West Germany national football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Germany national football team, e.g. in "Uwe Seeler, Franz Beckenbauer and Gerd Muller never played for Germany, they played for West Germany" or "West Germany and Germany were two different countries at one point" -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, ProhibitOnions, for proving my point. The summary of your move (moved Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990) to West Germany: Nice try, but move w/o discussion, and there's nothing wrong with the name "West Germany" -- the German article is at Westdeutschland) reveals a lack of understanding. de:Westdeutschland is a disambig page about the geographical and political uses of West Germany. I had created a similar stub which you deleted with admin powers. The German equivalent to the current article here (about FRG '49-'90) is at de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1990), the interwiki used there is en:History of Germany since 1945. Sorry, but this article here is a POV fork and needs to be moved&merged, not matter how common "West Germany" is used - or misused. -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a totally different issue to the article title. Agathoclea 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No freaking way this article should move. West Germany should be its own article, as East Germany should. The fact that this article has been around for so long, do you really think that you are the first one to think about moving it? When it was not even 1/10 of its glory, people wanted to move it, but it never happened because it deserves to be its own article. 202.132.6.219 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


agreed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the move that was made. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Support return to West Germany per WP:COMMON. --Reuben 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Germany and East Germany, which officially ceased to exist?

West Germany and East Germany, which officially ceased to exist? --SuperTank17 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These kind of questions, and the quotes I gave in the section above, really show the need for clarification of the 1949-1990 part of German history. The use of West Germany in articles needs to be reduced, and this article moved to a more appropriate name.-- Matthead discuß!     O       05:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
East Germany aka GDR ceased to exist. West Germany aka FRG was from that time onward called Germany in the English media. Agathoclea 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What about GDR's army? Was all it's equipment of that time passed over to the FRG's army?
National People's Army see text next to image of Tata-813 Agathoclea 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Infobox Former Country" removed

The use of "Infobox Former Country" is utterly wrong, as the Federal Republic of Germany still exists, having grown in 1957 by 1 and in 1990 by 5 states, similar to the USA which has grown several times, e. g. by two states in 1959, see List of U.S. states by date of statehood. Nobody would claim that the USA ceased to exist in 1958. Thus the infobox is removed, and data is moved into a separate section. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Before those actions please first discuss here!
The Infobox itself is advantageous. You are right about the name of the Infobox ("Former Country"), but the name is negligibly. --Orangerider 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've repeatedly used this talk page, which can not be said about you. The Infobox as such does not apply, as it claims that it the Federal Republic of Germany ceased to exist in 1990, which is utterly wrong. The use of the box is unacceptable, it contradicts facts. -- Matthead discuß!     O       20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The Infobox is applied to the political occurances in West Germany; the several references in the acticle already show that the German state is and was always the identically very same until today and that it didn't cease to exist in 1990, but kept to exist in 1945, 1949 and 1990. --Orangerider 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As the section above proves, and many other remarks elsewhere, too many people just don't get it, they either believe that West Germany does not exist anymore, or that it was merged on equal terms with East Germany. Same for German national football team, some insist they never won a World Cup, but West Germany did three times!
If any data that is listed in such a infobox is needed, then it can be included separately. For example, a comparison of the area and population would be interesting - but then this would belong in a different article, like History of Germany since 1945‎, where most of this article should be moved to anyway. It's enough to explain the informal use of "West Germany" with a few sentences and a map here. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be very intent on promoting one particular point of view that, clearly, not everyone agrees with. It's not a matter of "getting it," it's a matter of not agreeing with you. --Reuben 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So why does not everyone agree with simple facts (and my view)? Why do people insist on odd misconceptions? West Germany is not an informal name, it is a misinformational one, leading to gross mistakes - see the use of "Infobox Former Country" for a country that still exists, enlarged by about 25%. It would be funny to apply this infobox also to the many USofAs that ceased to exist when additional states joined the Union which even altered its flag on every occasion. The only useful(?) information of "West Germany" is "Hey, don't forget, a separate communist East German state existed once, too". -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if you could distinguish between the concepts "West Germany" and "Federal Republic". The Federal Republic (the political entity) continues to exist, even though in different borders. West Germany (the geographical and cultural entitiy) ceased to exist, because the situation of a divided Germany, which defined East and West Germany, has come to an end. Your comparison with the expansion of the United States is misleading, because this process wasn't a reunification of a divided country, but gradual expansion into territories that never belonged to the US before. Anorak2 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems that what you really want is to change the title, but there's a clear consensus against it. We can make it clear that the FRG state was continuous and grew to encompass the former East German lands without devoting the whole intro to attacking the idea of West Germany as a distinct entity, which is basically what it does now. --Reuben 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Could we sketch out a new introduction here, perhaps? At the moment we have barrage of naming, then bit of history, then something about continuation of institutions, then history, then institutions again... we start off with mentioning 1990, then 1957 mentioning Saarland but not explaining its role, then the Cold War, mention the founding but not the names of the states involved (possibly the crucial point of the intro) then back to fifties history. It's an informative but disorganised mess. Any thoughts on a rewrite - the essential points and the ordering of the material? It would be nice to have input before changing the most-read section of a high-profile article Knepflerle 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's sufficient to explain that West Germany was a common name for the FR of Germany in the Cold War era from 1949 to 1990 before GDR states acceded. Add a map and some links that are relevant for the time (Berlin wall etc.) and you are done. All history has to be covered in History of Germany since 1945 anyway, to need to maintain a fork here. As stated repeatedly, West Germany was neither a former nor a separate state from the FR of Germany. NATO and EU have expanded also, but nobody claims they have vanished while doing so. Most countries in Eastern Europe have changed more dramatically even if the borders stayed the same. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree the article needs a re-write. PMA 10:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV or facts?

Orangerider has made a couple of edits in the last hours which seem to be pushing the same POV as Matthead. Both appear to be saying that "West Germany" was identical with "Germany", and the arguments used to push this seem very awkward to say the least. Recently he's even reverted my attempts to remove his POV and present a more neutral wording (of facts which I otherwhise don't dispute). This method of POV pushing reminds me of what routinely goes on in the German wikipedia, so far I thought that the English wikipedia was free of it. :(

IMHO their arguments sound like a lame excuse for the common usage of "Germany" when referring to West Germany only that many West Germans used. But it is really a form of ignorance because it neglects the fact that other parts of Germany existed. (People not living in Germany at the time will probably not be awar of this usage and the ignorance associated with it, but you can take my word for it that it existed). Anorak2 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA, I've altered the headline. Besides, you call facts, which are inconvenient to you and/or others, POV.-- Matthead discuß!     O       19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, your idea that "West Germany is Germany" or whatever is not a fact but a rather bizarre POV. The political view of the West German government or judicial decisions of West German courts are worth referring, as long as you present them as viewpoints in a political struggle which had more than one side, and not as undisputable "facts" which they are not. (Maybe this article is not the right place to present this struggle, I think a better place would be articles about specific issues in the cold war, but I'm tolerant there). However please refrain from drawing the conclusions you wish to draw from them. Besides the government's views were political, but your POV is rather cultural, as evidenced in your above comparison with the USA's expansion. Anorak2 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is POV! West Germany is the very same state as the German Reich and therefore identical. All sources in jurisprudence corroborate that. The POV of brain washed Ossis and the official view of the ex-German Democratic Republic as a totalitarian and inhuman state is not relevant! Show me an official paper in international law that disproves the prevailing opinion. --Orangerider 22:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point.
First of all I reject the idea that this discussion should be limited to judicial interpretation. "West Germany" is an informal name - thus discussions of judicial formalities are of lower prioritiy - for a former state and a former cultural and geographic entity. It ought to be discussed in this framework. Remember the title page of "Der Spiegel" from 1990: "Preis der Einheit: Das Ende der Bundesrepublik"? This was not a judicial statement about the continuity of the Federal Republic as a formal entity (of course the Spiegel authors knew that the latter wouldn't come to an end) but a comment about the cultural, economic, social framework of what constituted the old West Germany and an expression of fear that it might be in danger. This is what the term "West Germany" is about.
Second your interpretation of "international law" is a bit one sided. Internatonal law is a fuzzy and difficult field to begin with. There is no international legislation, no international executive and no univerally accepted international court, it's just a number of mutual agreements who cannot really be enforced if one side decides to break them. At the end of the day they rest on mutual trust.
Regarding our subject, there is no "paper in international law" at all from pre-1990 that defines the legal status of Germany or any of its parts, because there was disagreement between the relevant parties. So there shouldn't be statements in this article who suggest otherwhise. We can present the POVs of the parties involved, but we have to describe them as POVs and not facts.
The jurisprudence of one country cannot unilaterally interpret international law, they merely interpret their domestic laws (in this case: West German court interpreted the West German Grundgesetz) which have no international relevance as such because they're not agreements among several countries, but unilateral declarations of one country. There are lots of sources - mostly from the eastern block - who interpret the legal status of Germany and its parts completely different than West German courts did. Of course the eastern sources are equally unilateral and therefore equally void, but their existance proves the fact that there was disagreement and that the West German position was merely one POV among several. If you need quotes, remind me please, I'll deliver them.
Third, your wording "brainwashed ossis" proves that you are biased and a bit arrogant, and that you wish to ignore POVs different from your own. The fact that East Germany was a dictatorship does not disprove the fact that its POV existed, which is all that matters. It is a fact, the POV existed, and this alone makes it relevant. You don't have to be an ossi to recognize this, and even if you are that does not disprove it. Besides I'm not an ossi, but I detect ignorant wessi viewpoints when I see one. Anorak2 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The German Reich never ceased to exist. Therefore, there could never be a successor - neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor the GDR. --Orangerider 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is that important? Who cares? Is that all you have to say? The problem is that you and Matthead are constantly attacking the concept of "West Germany" and pretend that it was identical with "Germany". That implies East Germany and Berlin were not part of "Germany" before 1990. Do you realise that's an inflammatory position? Anorak2 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that doesn't imply and nobody claims that East Germany and Berlin wouldn't be part of "Germany" before 1990. --Orangerider 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Trabant 601
Trabant 601
Wartburg 353
Wartburg 353
No Mercedes?
No Mercedes?
Mercedes ('91)
Mercedes ('91)
There was no symmetry between West Germany and East Germany, no matter what the sloppy use of these two informal names suggest. Already in 1953, the GDR forfeited any rights to be treated equally with the FR of Germany, by killing hundreds during the Uprising of 1953 in East Germany. The mass exodus of thousands of East Germans to the FR of Germany could only be stopped by more force, erecting the Berlin Wall as another monument of the failure of the socialist experiment with millions of humans. Shortly after the USSR openly discontinued the support of the SED government, the East Germans toppled these commies. As soon as international politics allowed, the GDR residents mopped up the remainder of that state, pretty much like pushing a wrecked Trabant to the junk yard before climbing into the comfy back seat of the family-owned Mercedes-Benz. That Mercedes-Benz had been crashed by a reckless driver in 1918, with parts and passengers getting lost, and wrecked in 1945 by an even more reckless driver, with more parts and passengers getting lost. The remaining passengers in 1949 rebuild the car as a smaller, quieter and environmental friendlier one, only to be driven by careful drivers from now on. In 1990, some of the missing family members lost in 1949 were found hitchhiking by the road side, as the little car they were forced to assemble was beyond repair - one day in 1961, they even had been surrounded by a garage so close to the doors that they could not get out for decades. They were picked up, and the Mercedes-Benz was quickly turned into a stretch-limo to accommodate the whole family in style. Since 3 October 1990, that car is regarded by everyone as true Mercedes-Benz, yet some people insist that from 1945 to 1990, it has to be called Wartburg 353 as it was like the Trabant 601, only a little larger and with more passengers. -- Matthead discuß!     O       04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting increasingly silly. So far I was under the impression that Orangerider and Matthead had the same axe to grind, but apparently there are differences. Orangerider does not claim that East Germany and Berlin were not part of Germany, but I think Matthead does indeed claim that, at least hasn't disclaimed it. Of course that idea is complete bullshit, mildly put.
The symmetry I mentioned earlier refers to the claims of both German governments to reunification under their respective regimes by incorporating the other state into their own. This is true, look it up. Your response does not even address this point, what the hell do car brands have to do with any of it?
None of what I stated above is a political position or a moral judgement of East Germany, just statements of facts that both of you ignore. With your decidedly political responses both of you are barking up the wrong tree, I'm not interested in such a discussion. However both of you appear to have political axes (perhaps also "cultural superiority axes") to grind, and I must ask you to stop it as long as you're editing articles. Anorak2 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have already written it but I will it explain in German because of phrasing the circumstances:
Laut Grundlagenvertrag waren zum damaligen Zeitpunkt sowohl die DDR als auch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Staaten und als solche gemäß der Dreielementenlehre auch Völkerrechtssubjekte. Da aber das Deutsche Reich niemals untergegangen ist bzw. nicht aufhörte, zu existieren, kann sich auch nicht die DDR als Nachfolgestaat behaupten, was sie aber ab 1970 - oder auch schon früher mit der zweiten DDR-Verfassung - tat. Aufgrund diesen Sachverhalts fusst die politische Meinung der DDR-Führung sowie der UdSSR, vgl. Zwei-Staaten-Theorie, auf einer bewiesenen Unwahrheit. Laut dem Postdamer Abkommen sowie der Erklärung der Siegermächte bezüglich der Niederlage Deutschlands und der Übernahme der Regierungshoheit über das okkupierte Gebiet bestand Deutschland als Ganzes in den Grenzen vom 31. Dezember 1937 fort, und ist weder mit der bedingungslosen Kapitulation der Wehrmacht (was einer militärischen Kapitulation und nicht der Kapitulation des Deutschen Reiches gleichkam), noch mit der Regierungsübernahme durch die Militärgouverneure und später die Hohen Kommissare im Allierten Kontrollrat untergegangen.
Zitat: „Das Deutsche Reich in seiner historischen Gestalt ist spätestens mit der bedingungslosen Kapitulation aller Streitkräfte vom 7. und 8. Mai 1945 institutionell vollständig zusammengebrochen. Seine damals noch vorhandenen Organe und sonstigen staatsrechtlichen Strukturen sind im Mai 1945 auf allen Ebenen endgültig weggefallen, an ihre Stelle sind in den folgenden Jahren, zuletzt durch die deutsche Wiedervereinigung vom 3. Oktober 1990, neue, durch allgemeine Wahlen historisch und rechtlich uneingeschränkt legitimierte Strukturen getreten.“ (Amtsgericht Duisburg: NJW 2006, S. 3577; Rechtsprechungsdatenbank des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen; Az: 46 K 361/04)
Somit waren in der Zeit von 1949-1990 beide deutsche Staaten Teil Deutschlands als Ganzem (Germany as a whole), was im 2+4-Vertrag bekräftigt wurde; das vereinigte Deutschland sollte in diesem völkerrechtlichen Vertrag auf Ansprüche auf Gebiete östlich der Oder-Neiße-Linie verzichten und die gegenwärtigen Grenzen in Europa anerkennen, was Voraussetzung für eine Zustimmung der Alliierten war, dass diese fort an auf ihre Vorbehaltsrechte verzichten, und auch durch den Deutsch-Polnischen Grenzvertrag zwischen der deutschen Bundesregierung und der polnischen Regierung in Anbetracht der Wahrung des Friedens in Europa bestätigt wurde.
Durch die Deutsche Wiedervereinigung (German reunification) wurde die Bundesrepublik Deutschland aufgrund des Beitritts der DDR zum Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes, wodurch die ostdeutschen Länder Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurden, völkerrechtlich vollidentisch zum Deutschen Reich. --Orangerider 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1974 Football World Cup pos.jpg

Image:1974 Football World Cup pos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

Shouldn't "Federal Republic of Germany" redirect to "Germany" instead of this article ? This is still the country's official name. Wedineinheck 10:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Army Faction

The RAF part of the article has been changed numerous times to include the world "terrorist". Please fight it out here instead of continuing to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.132.6.251 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what are they supposed to be, Care bears ? Wedineinheck 12:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent West Germany?

"During the Cold War period ...the Federal Republic as the largest democratic and ONLY INDEPENDENT German state had claimed exclusive mandate for all of Germany, ..."

That is not truth! See article "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" and "Allied Control Council". Quote: "Germany remained under nominal military occupation until 12 September 1990, when the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, the final peace treaty, was signed by the four powers and the two German governments, restoring German sovereignty. This meant the official end of the Allied Control Council, insofar as it still existed at all." If a land is occupied and controlled (even it´s nominal) by foreign forces you can´t call it independent, right? Could anyone registered change this please?

Michael (native (east) german) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.243.55 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was as independent as East Germany, but it is wrong however, to state, one was more or less independent than the other at the same period. -- Arne List (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:VWgermany.jpg

Image:VWgermany.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] International licence plate

I undid this edit for the following reason:

East Germany used the international licence plate "D" until 1974 *). Matthead's version makes it sound as if keeping the "D" and other (unnamed) "traditions" were a defining feature of West Germany and that it was so from its beginning in 1949. Even though it's true that in 1989 West Germany had the "D" and East Germany had "DDR", that wasn't true all the time.

East Germany kept formalities that hinted at a continuing German nation until the early 1970s because their goal was reunification until then. They dropped many of those features after that time, because they gave up reunification as a goal around that time. This is certainly important and interesting for wikipedia readers, but then it ought to be presented in all its detail, but not as a defining feature of West Germany (because it isn't), and maybe not even in this article (because it has little to do with West Germany in the first place).

Anorak2 (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • ) PS: German readers maybe aware of the television programme "Kennzeichen D" on ZDF. It was a political programme about East and West German issues. The name was chosen because - at the time of its foundation in 1971 - the licence plate "D" was still common to both Germanies, thus a visual link and a symbol for the concept of the programme.

[edit] West Germany and East Germany

I know this subject is disputed from the left-leaning parts of the then West German and today's German population, but it was a fact that the Federal Republic of Germany never treated the GDR as a completely separate foreign country. Yes, it recognized East Germany on a de facto basis, but unlike many other countries of the world, still considered that there was only One German nation - and there were two governments under that single nation. For example, the West German foreign minister never met his East German counterparts (which was broken by Hans-Dietrich Genscher in September 1989 when he met his East German counterpart Oskar Fischer in New York in settling the issue of letting the refugees/defectors stranded in Prague out to West Germany. By the time die Wende was already starting and the Berlin Wall would fall within 50 days, so this breakthrough was of course rendered academic). Secondly, the EC treated East Germany as a "special" customs zone with the European Community because of West Germany's position that East Germany was never quite a separate country.

I'm quite sure that had the events in 1989 not occured or at a much more gradual pace, looking at the trends in West Germany up to 1988, the political and intellectual circles in West Germany would probably have created a powerful impetus for the Federal Republic to fully recognize East Germany as a completely separate foreign country by the mid 1990s, and treating the relationships to the GDR as akin to Switzerland or Austria. Of course 1989 derailed all these points and thus makes everything largely an academic topic of interest. --JNZ (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bonn republic

Nowadays the old West Germany is also called the 'Bonner Republik' (Bonn republic, like Weimar republic) while the reunited Federal Republic of Germany is also called the 'Berliner Republik' (Berlin republic)

Weimar republic (German Reich) 1918-1933
Bonn republic (Federal republic of Germany/West Germany) 1949-1990
Berlin republic (Federal republic of Germany/Reunited Germany)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.192.137 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also heard a much less common label of 'First Republic' for the Weimar Republic, and 'Second Republic' for the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to today. --JNZ (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)