Talk:East Germany

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

Taking pictures in old East Germany

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

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

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

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

It's true. Both the West and the Communists wanted to 'denazify' Germany, but the Communists were strongly intent on eliminating everyone associated with Nazism, while the West was more interested in 'rehabilitation'. The West soon decided that Communism was a bigger threat than a revival of Nazism; their main interest became getting West Germany powerful enough to withstand Communism, which meant giving the Nazis back their jobs. In Nazi Germany bureaucrats, businesspeople, academics, etc., had to support the Nazis if they were to get anywhere; thus many of the educated people still in Germany after the war had Nazi associations. Life in West Germany was much easier for ex-Nazis than it was in East Germany -- SJK.

Both in West and in East Germany Nazis were hunted. If someone was an important Nazi he was jailed both in West and East Germany. Life for Nazis wasn't easy at all. 82.82.125.13 22:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I took this out:

The forces within East Germany , who had prompted the criticisms and uprisings preceding the fall of the wall, were shoved aside by the majority fears of being left behind in the oncoming Warsaw Pact collapse. On October 3 1990, Gorbatchow and Reagan made a deal and Berlin was subsequently annexed and (re-)established as the national capital.

A few things are making my BS detector start ringing: The nebulous reference to "forces", Reagan was not president at the time, and the odd spelling of Gorbachev. What is this on about? -- Paul Drye

The first sentence is mine, the second is not. The first sentence referred to the leading activists within the GDR who criticized and organized for a significant change in government. These did not support the GDR disappearing into the Federal Republic. They wanted another GDR not none. They led all the significant protests in East Germany and only when large crowds started to join in was the cause subverted to being one for unification (which is falsely labeled reunification -- this Germany never existed before). -- StefanBrun

The sentence "was a Communist satellite country of the Soviet Union which existed from 1949 to 1990." could qualify a little more. Although probably true to some extent, it seems like Cold War language to me. -- JHeijmans

-Yes, it's cold war language, but all the Warsaw pact countries were called "satellite states". I think it's correct to mention the term in the article, but as it stands in the first sentence, it looks a bit too negative. -Guppie

The term "satellite state" is not NPOV. It should be removed, or we should start adding the term satellite state to all states under U.S. influence. --Daniel C. Boyer

I have removed this ridiculous POV language from the first paragraph. -- HectorRodriguez 22:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could someone clarify if E Germany was a unique party regime with the SED? Poland wasn't.

East Germany wasn't either. There were several parties, but all of them subordinated to the SED. No party was really allowed to state other opinions than the ruling SED, so these other parties haven't been real parties in a modern sense. -- Cordyph 15:14 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

An enumeration and small description of E German parties (including the SED) in the article would be interesting -- Davidme 01:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Done - it had the list on the german wikipedia. But it's still quite simple list with nearly no description. andy 16:14 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Please replace "West Germany" by "FRG" or "Federal Republic of Germany" and "East Germany" by "GDR" or "German Democratic Republic". "West Germany" and "East Germany" are more or less Slang term like "Amiland" and "America" for the "United States of America".

It hasn't been the official term, but it is not a "slang term" (discussing that way, "South Korea" would be a slang term, too). Replacing West Germany with "Federal Republic of Germany" would be ambiguous, since the united Germany is still called FRG. By the way, the links on the top of an article are interlanguage links leading to the other language wikipedias. By changing them you disabled these links. -- Cordyph 06:43 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Before West Germany was created, the US and the UK merged their respective occupation zones into Bizonia. When France added its zone, too, the entity came to be called Trizonia. --Vladko 12:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In 1971 the country had its only change of leadership when Erich Honecker overthrew Ulbricht in a technical coup.

I'm not sure that that is correct because (from memory) I believe Honecker stood down shortly before the GDR collapsed in 1989 and was replaced by someone else as leader (cant remember his name) am I right? G-Man 16:24 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixed the article

Honecker was followed by Modrow, Krenz and de Maiziere. 82.82.125.13 22:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries template. Given that we're still far from completing the present-day countries, I'd say it's unnecessary to apply an incomplete and quite possibly not entirely applicable template to this article. I didn't really add anything new to the article (most of it was mentioned at the bottom and what little was added remains), and the template entails more than just a table. I would like to suggest we decide on what to do with extinct countries (notwithstanding that Soviet Union has the likewise awkward template on it) after we complete the present-day countries. -Scipius 21:56 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have restored the template. I do not see any relationship between the facts that templates have not been applied to all present-day countries and the fact that such templates should not be applied to former countries. Several extinct countries already have a template, just as many provinces and departments of several existing countries do. Should we revert all the templates of these provinces and wait until the countries are done? Hellooooooooooooo! I believe that having a template for extinct countries is a good thing. Having a Wikiproject dealing with the definition of these templates is probably a good thing too. Reverting such templates before such a Wikiproject is complete is not a good thing in my opinion, because having already a template on a few extinct countries can help us figure out what the template should look like. olivier 07:42 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps a different template is needed to distinguish the dead from the living, but there isn't one now. Does that mean we have to wait until the living are all completed? 6 months? 2 years? That doesn't sound very Wikipedistic, making current contributors and potential ones just wait until that unforeseenable day arrives. People with knowledge may come, and they may go. By the time of the completion, many valuable info may be gone with the person. --Menchi 07:52 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Edit war

RickK, Wik, knock off the edit war. If you can't discuss your differences in talk, ask some other wikipedians to arbitrate. -- Infrogmation 07:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Without examining the merits of the different edits of the conflicting parties, I reverted to an old version from back in November, which I hope would be not be fully satisfactory to either party. Will some wikipedians interested in East Germany other than Wik or Rick K please take a look at the various versions and give input? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 07:23, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, could someone please arbitrate? HectorRodriguez, anti-American pro-Soviet, started this by trying to make it look as if East Germany's "socialist" government was self-created instead of imposed by the Soviet Union. Wik, who I am beginning to think is Hector, reverted my reversion of Hector's vandalism without an explanation as to WHY the original version is somehow POV. Oh, and by the way, Wik reverted your reversion, so nothing has changed. RickK 07:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no problems with an anti-American POV. I think that the wikipedia generally has a pro-US POV so balance is good. This is a political debate - not vandalism. Secretlondon 10:46, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

East Germany was no more a satellite of the U.S.S.R. than West Germany was a satellite of the U.S. --Wik 07:29, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

No. Berlin (West and East) had a special status, but West Germany was completely autonomous. 82.82.125.13 22:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Taken out of the cold war it could easily be argued that this is the case. West Germany was rebuilt in the US model, as much as the GDR was rebuilt in the Soviet model. Secretlondon 10:46, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it was. The East German government only existed because it was propped up by soviet bayonets. While West Germany may be considered to have been a satellite of the United States at first, the situation is clearly rather different. I think the version being promoted here by Wik and Hector Rodriguez is simply poor in its complete whitewash of the East German regime (I mean, come on, "East Germany, under the influence of the soviet union, became a socialist state"? On the other hand, the original version isn't so great either. That the whole history section contains not a single mention of the SED, for instance, is pretty lame. john 08:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree the article is lacking. However we don't need to write a cold warrior article either. Secretlondon 10:46, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

East Germany's government was "imposed"? In what way was East Germany's government more imposed than say West Germany or Italy's? How is the "situation clearly different" that West Germany was not a US satellite? Were not US troops stationed there (and still stationed there)? The US right has accused everything not in their interest of being a Soviet puppet - they used to very seriously say Martin Luther King Jr. was a Soviet puppet (Jesse Helms made this accusation on the floor of the US Congress to try and block the King holiday as late as 1983). African-Americans don't want the right to vote - only the Bolsheviks from the USSR would want that! There is this idea on the American right that everything that happened that was not in their interest was plotted in the Kremlin - so that everyone from Martin Luther King to Honecker became nothing but a puppet of the Kremlin, whereas everyone in Western Europe was perfectly free, happy the US army was there and so forth. I think if we stick to the facts (such as that East Germany allowed capitalist political parties to run for elections, while West Germany banned the communist party from running for election) instead of trying to trying to write about East Germany from solely the POV of the US right wing, we will do fine. -- HectorRodriguez 16:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually East Germany only allowed non-SED parties to run for elections if they were part of the National Front (see Volkskammer for details. The ratio of seats allocated per party was pre-determined, and people voted yes or no to the United front. That is not the same as allowing capitalist political parties to run for elections. Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hector, I hope you won't mind too much my saying that the above is almost entirely a red herring. You are attempting to suggest that a belief that the DDR was Soviet-controlled is as ludicrous and biased as the notion that MLK was Communist. This is not at all relevant to the problem at hand. I think that there is actual evidence to be marshaled from both sides, and that rather than posturing, the evidence should be brought forward.

It does appear that most of the people in this debate want to emphasize the independence of East Germany, and so I will say that the Soviets did claim that all the "Soviet Socialist Republics" were independent....if you recall, the Ukraine and Belarus had votes in the UN during the Cold War based on this Soviet insistence. I doubt anyone would here contend that the Ukraine was independent of Moscow's rule in the 1960s? If so, then I think we have to at least admit that the Communist Party in Russia has established a track record of claiming independence for countries it has in fact overrun and set its rule over. In that case, we ought to be especially careful when dismissing such claims for East Germany. I would ask several questions regarding E. Germany's independence: for example, did Soviet politicians ever get shuffled to E. Germany from the USSR or other WPact nations? Are there any instances in which E. Germany defied an instruction from the USSR or acted unilaterally? I think these sorts of questions get us closer to whether or not E. Germany was a satellite state. If your contention is that W. Germany was a satellite state of the US, then I think the argument shouldn't occur here but at Talk:West Germany, and focus on whether or not we can find significant differences between the E. Germany-USSR and the W. Germany-US relationships. I personally believe they are there to be found, but I don't believe this dogmatically, and would love to see the evidence. Jwrosenzweig 17:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't confuse SSRs with Warsaw Pact states. There was no personnel swapping between the USSR and the GDR. Some states did rebel - the obvious ones are Albania and Yugoslavia. Of course states that have a foreign army based there are less likely to disagree with them. It is widely argued that the lack of support from the USSR in the late 1980s, and the SED's failure to follow Gorbechev led to the GDR's collapse. At the end the SED was censoring Soviet literature. Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

As far as your suggestion of moving discussion of West Germany, or Italy, of being a satellite state of the USA, that is clearly ridiculous. Can you imagine if I editted those pages like this one, and said "Italy was a capitalist satellite state of the USA"? People would be coming in droves to accuse me of POV. I am going to avoid that suggestion and focus on keeping the language here on an equivalent level when there actually was an equivalence. I see language as if the National Front was an undemocratic anomaly - as if the American Democrats and Republicans do not have laws, debates and such for their own type of National Front. Or that East German parliament had little power - as if the media, election financing, businesses and so forth in the US were not in the hands of a small elite minority. As secretlondon stated, Yugoslavia and Albania often broke with the USSR on issues. They were not the only ones, Romania had many disagreements with the USSR as well. As did East Germany and other Eastern countries. How often did Western countries break from the USA line? The amount of dissension in the west and east was somewhat equivalent. There seems to be this American concept of Western Europe that forgets that the Communist party was France's largest party for many years, that the US majorly interfered in post-war Italian elections, that PCI in Italy won over 1/3 of the vote as late as 1976, with the Christian Democrats winning with less than 5% of a majority over them, that NATO had a plan to attack Italy if they voted the Communists in, that Spain was, unlike any country in Eastern Europe, under a dictatorship during the Cold War, a dictatorship confronted by internal resistance that the US helped put down with Franco (just as Hitler had done beforehand). I also see this mention of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe, as if the US didn't have bases in West Germany, Italy and so forth (and still does, incidentally). As I said before, I am not going to edit Italy's page and call it a "capitalist satellite state of the USA", I simply want to see the same kind of language apply to the Eastern countries as the Western countries pertaining to the things which they were doing equivalently. You may be scandalized by a Russian troop in Poland, while an American troop in Italy was "protecting freedom" or whatever, but not everyone feels this way. -- HectorRodriguez 20:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well put, Jwrosenzweig. But you did not need to elaborate in such great detail. This is an issue of formal definition. Government-types, membership in major international organization, dates when nations were proclaimed sovereign, population estimates, neighbors, seat of government, etc. belong in these articles. Loaded terms do not.

Since this is a black and white matter of encyclopedic standards beyond the range of possibility for a neutrality dispute, I'm lifting the protection. I'd also need to say a few things about RickK's inappropriate treatment of a new user.

Some of HectorRodriguez's edits warranted reversion. His discussion of the 9/11/73 coup in Chile, for example, was full of emotive terms and perhaps off-topic.

But in this case Hector is insisting on formal definition and encyclopedic standards. "Satellite" is inappropriate and not encyclopedic. You will not find credible sourcebooks and encyclopedias using such terms at the beginning of a country entry. This is an appropriate intro: "The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was proclaimed in the Soviet sector of Berlin October 7, 1949. It was declared fully sovereign in 1954, but Soviet troops remained on grounds of the four-power Potsdam agreement. East Germany was a member of the Warsaw Pact."

On a related note, RickK must stop automatically reverting each edit by Hector. We are dealing with a new user, not a banned user subject to auto-revert. Hector has been inserting loaded language into articles.

We have to assume that he is a new user unfamiliar with NPOV policies. As an admin, RickK should have been counseling this new user. Instead, he started browbeating Hector based on his supposed beliefs and allowed himself to be pulled into a partisan flame war. 172 17:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all who say that this should not be a cold warrior article, and that there's no reason to say that the DDR was a "satellite state" in the first paragraph. On the other hand, it's utterly ridiculous that the history section says that East Germany, "influenced" by the soviet union, became a "socialist" state. That's just a whitewash. john 18:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my edit I added, "Soviet troops remained on grounds of the four-power Potsdam agreement" and the founding of the GDR in the Soviet sector. This is enough. This is not the main article on the history of the GDR, but a country page with only a brief overview of the history and politics article. 172 18:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I somewhat dispute the idea that defunct countries ought not to have their history discussed in the main article about them. Any discussion of East Germany is essentially a discussion of the history of East Germany, even when the discussion is specifically about the governmental system or the geography of this no longer existing country. (The history of East Germany article, by the way, looks pretty good). At any rate, I've changed the offending sentence to be more accurate, without being cold warriorish, I hope. I've replaced "socialist" with Marxist-Leninist, and "influenced by the Soviet Union" with "under Soviet influence." john 20:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder - you *know* that isn't NPOV. Why?? Secretlondon 21:49, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Given the comments here, I think the deletion of the phrase is justified: I suspected it might be, but was worried we were jumping too soon. Thanks to the editors who offered their perspective: I'm learning things, which is always pleasant. Jwrosenzweig 21:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fred - why do you want to get this article protected again? Secretlondon 22:53, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fred's being Fred again. Secretlondon and Jwrosenzweig need to check out the talk archive of Communist state if they want to get an idea of what they're in for. Jtdirl must have filled up have a dozen talk archives trying to explain to him the difference between a standard political science definition of a government-type and what belongs in an encyclopedic entry on a formal constitutional framework to no avail. He then started accusing Jtdirl of "leftwing historical revisionism" (the same Jtdirl who's been called an anti-Irish Brit Tory and apologist for the Roman Catholic Church since he got in the way of the loopy rants of other b.s. users). On other articles, I struggled to explain to him that "totalitarian" is not a government-type but a regime typology used in the social sciences for comparative research, but to little avail.

Fred, however, is not an idiot. Check out Social structure of the United States - AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE BY FRED BAUDER. He's quite competent and knows full well the differences between propaganda and real history and social science. He just doesn't care. 172 23:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gosh, I do care. I just think a NPOV factual introduction is in order for the East Germany article. Let's go through it word by word. Is there any evidence from any credible source that East Germany was not a totalitarian regime? Fred Bauder 23:20, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

As a suggestion: who has stated that East Germany was a totalitarian regime? Some prominent politican/commentator/dissadent? Quote them! Avoid POV by attributing evaluations. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The term "totalitarian" is horribly fraught, and should be avoided. john

Fred: (In response to: "Is there any evidence from any credible source that East Germany was not a totalitarian regime?")

This isn't about whether or not East Germany was totalitarian, but the use of standard government types rather than typologies, which have no universal meaning. Not only is there a huge variation in how terms are applied, but also a huge variation of conceptualizations (which often vary depending on the type of inquiry the for which the typology is targeted).

Let me give you an idea why typologies belong in theoretical journals, and not Wiki country pages with brief article summaries. When drawing up the criteria for classification, e.g., some models just consider regime configuration, while others stress the density and autonomy of civil society even more so than regime configuration. Back in the '50s, when regime typologies were really in vogue in political science, the classic tripartite distinction ("authoritarianism," "totalitarianism," and "democracy") was dominant. Since then, these terms have entered the popular lexicon, often used in a very loose sense. But in the social sciences, the classic tripartite model broke after the Cuban Missile Crisis, giving way to a plethora of conceptualizations, over-arching types, and sub-types that are often region-specific. Regarding East Germany, I've seen "single party state," "mature post-totalitarianism," "authoritarian," and "post-totalitarian," "bureaucratic pluralism," and "institutional pluralism" used from time to time in the U.S. literature (which is all I can try to speak for).

These terms are used for theoretical modeling for comparative research. Some influential comparativists use "post-totalitarian," for example, to differentiate the Brezhnevite USSR from the Stalinist USSR given, e.g., trends toward greater constraints on leadership (hence the "collective leadership" of the Brezhnev era), institutionalization and rationalization, and greater pluralism on the margins of the regime's institutions. (They'll say that less repression is a consequence of such factors.) In comparative politics today, "post-totalitarian" seems to be the one in favor for the DDR. To give you an idea why this is all such a big deal, using a typological analysis and modernization theory, some political scientists argue that this shift, along with trends toward higher levels of professionalization, occupational specialization, education, and the standard of living witnessed after "de-Stalinization" (building on the mobilization of resources/industrialization in the Stalin years) explains why the Eastern Bloc collapsed when it did. In contrast, North Korea, where you've seen nothing along the lines of de-Stalinization, was able to outlast Communist states that enjoyed far higher living standards.

As an aside, it's fine (using some discretion) to use the term "totalitarian" when you're dealing with the Stalinist USSR in a loose sense (e.g., "totalitarian control of the..."), given that the term made its way into the vocabulary of other fields studying the Stalin era. But in reference to most of the Eastern Bloc in '60s, '70s, and '80s (maybe with the exception of Romania), you'll mostly see it in works that have an explicit and overt political message. Anyhow, this should make the point that these are theoretical constructs with no universally recognized model. Since Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a theoretical or comparative-historical journal, we need to use the government-type, which is Communist state. See my comments from several days ago on Marxist-Leninist government (criticizing the idea of having such a page) if this is unclear.

"Communist state" can go in the article. This is a specific, unambiguous term. To sum it all up, say you got 50 specialists in comparative social science disciplines in a room, asked them to name all the Communist states (government-type), and had them reach a consensus before coming out with an answer, you'd get "China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea" in seconds. If you went with the same procedure, but asked them to later to list each "authoritarian" regime or each "consolidated democracy" (both typologies) in existence today, you'd either have blood on the floor or a categorical refusal to answer the question. Sorry for the long tangent, but with Jtdirl gone awol now (what happened to him?), I guess I'll have to be the one always harping about standard definition of government-types. 172 02:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Communist state sounds good to me. And I'd agree that totalitarian certainly isn't appropriate. (I'd tend to avoid using the term even for the classic "totalitarian" countries of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, given the political implications of the use of that term.) john 02:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. BTW, I accidentally cut off the beginning of my reply to Fred's question before you got to read it. Sorry about that. It must've seemed really out of place like that. 172 02:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't really like the term communist state, since communist means no state for one. Socialist state or state run by a communist party or something along those lines seems better. The German wiki page says "Die DDR war ein sozialistischer Staat". Many of the Warsaw pact countries incorporated the word socialist in their name, none of them incorporated the word communist, which makes one wonder why Americans mostly are applying the label communist state on the country when no one else does. Calling the DDR a communist state is not consciously POV, it just shows how much sub-conscious POV is in American jargon from decades of Cold War propaganda. Communists always talked about a communist society, never a communist state. HectorRodriguez 03:06, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that countries run by Communist parties never called themselves "Communist states". The term is one used by western political scientists to explain a particular form of government first developed in the Soviet Union bla bla bla bla bla. This discussion has been had before. "socialist state" is utterly inappropriate, as it is completely meaningless - Sweden in the 1950s and 60s might also be considered a "socialist state," but clearly it was very different from the DDR at the same time. Personally, I like saying "Marxist-Leninist ideology," since this is both accurate and uncontroversial, but since we have a lengthy article explaining the idea of the communist state, I'm not sure why that should be offensive. john 03:21, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Hector. "Socialist state," after all, is the term used by a quarter of the world's population living in China, Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, and Laos! "Communist state" is also an utterly nonsensical given their state ideologies.

There are two practical reasons for using "Communist state" on Wiki for now. One, we have an article on "Communist state;" so I guess that this term is the consensus around here. Second, it's not only the term with which most Western general readers are familiar, it's also the one used (arguably incorrectly) in most Western encyclopedias and sourcebooks. "Socialist state," however, is rarely used.

IMHO, we should use Communist Party-run state, which is relatable, accurate, and used in some sourcebooks. I'd be willing to change all references to "Communist state" to "Communist Party-run state" in articles if the Communist state can be moved to Communist Party-run state.

BTW, John is off a bit. Sweden's government type is constitutional monarchy and only constitutional monarchy. Government type is the formal constitutional framework and nothing else. 172 03:51, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, which is why "socialist state" makes no sense, given the variety of meanings of "socialism" and of parties calling themselves socialist. At any rate, Communist Party-run state does seem better, but is rather awkward. john 04:12, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do not find any objection to the use of a link to totalitarianism that was raised ought to outweigh the thousands of linkages of the East German regime to totalitarianism I provided in the link to Google. Fred Bauder 01:36, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your changess. Please reread my comments above. The term has made it way into the popular lexicon, but typological analysis in political science has been developed considerably since the '50s. Moreover, country page listings in sourcebooks stick with the formal government type, not conceptualizations used by theorists and researchers. 172 03:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You just don't get it 172. "Socialist" in no way adequately describes the East German police state. Using the word in this context is a slap in the face to anyone who ever advocated socialist ideals. Fred Bauder 12:14, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

No, you're confusing my stance. I kept on saying use the government-type, which is known as a "Communist state" in the West in encyclopedias and sourcebooks; check, e.g., The World Almanac and Book of Facts. I personally favor Communist Party-led state, but since the Wiki article links to Communist state, we might as well refer to East Germany as a Communist state in this article. 172 19:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I assume you do not believe, then, that Marxist-Leninists advocated socialist ideals? john 19:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect name of Middle Germany

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

I propose we keep it exactly where it is. Irredentism is no reason to move it. Morwen 07:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

The DDR has always been called "East Germany" in English. Quit with the silliness, Nico. john 19:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, "Middle Germany" was the name used in West Germany during the cold war. You are correct that DDR was nicknamed East Germany in English, but it was never the name of the state, and most articles here dealing with states use their official name or their official short name, like France, Spain, Germany. The short name of the German Democratic Republic was DDR, not East Germany. Nico 19:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Parden me? You're kidding with this middle germany thing? I've never personally heard someone refer to the DDR as middle germany. The conservatives used to call it "east zone", but "middle germany" was never accepted naming, not if you got over third reich. TRauMa 05:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ostmark. Morwen 21:06, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

And I cite the article: "Officially it was known as the Mark der DDR". Nico 01:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Historical Eastern Germany article for a discussion on this:

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

Totalitarian state

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

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

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

There are things in between democracies and totalitarian states, you know. (Note I am not saying it was either, or both, or neither.) Morwen 22:47, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

None of those things in between shoot anyone who tries to escape. Fred Bauder 17:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

When did East Germany stop being totalitarian? I ask this because I presume you wouldn't contend it was a totalitarian state after the CDU won the elections. But they couldn't have won the elections if it was a totalitarian state for quite some time before... Morwen 17:29, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. Middle Germany (DDR) stopped being totalitarian when it was liberated and annexed by Germany in 1990, they started holding elections etc. Why couldn't CDU win the elections after the territory was liberated? Do you presume that the Middle Germans should vote on their oppressors when they were free again?

Anyway, as a British, why do you defend this totalitarian regime in another country? I guess most British people would be offended if I wished that Great Britain had a totalitarian regime. Nico 19:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral point of view does not rule out use of words like "totalitarianism", it only requires that it be balanced by other views of the situation, like for example, "socialist". That elections were held as the puppet regime neared collapse should certainly be included in the article, but in an appropriate way. Fred Bauder 16:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV ought to rule out the article saying "East Germany was totalitarian," as though this is an unproblematic term. I think everyone can agree that in some sense, East Germany was a "Socialist" state. The same is absolutely not true of totalitarianism (even among those who accept that there is such a thing). The elections were held after East Germany ceased to be a Soviet puppet, BTW. john 17:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is the language I would have:

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

Perhaps this would be acceptable:

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

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

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

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

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

Move page

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

I suspect the original choice was arbitrary. Move it if you wish. Fred Bauder 18:22, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Wik" disagrees (of course). I wish users like Wik would give others a chance to edit before they reverted… — Jor (Talk) 18:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, the article obviously belongs at GDR:

1.4 Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things

East Germany can have more meanings, but GDR always refers to the Soviet satellite state. — Jor (Talk) 18:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And of course there is no need for any disambiguation note if the page is at the proper location. Alas "Wik" moved it back before I could perform an edit or use the talk page to explain why. — Jor (Talk) 18:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The best argument for keeping it as East Germany is that West Germany is the logical counterpart.

--Ruhrjung 19:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jor:

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

As stated I have no interests in Wik's revert war games. — Jor (Talk) 19:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that User:Wik is playing games. He is a serious user and among the handful of most active editors on WP. To him this was probably an issue of removing non-neutral language. 172 00:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name of country

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

There are counterexamples, though. Egypt has 'Egypt'. Does the WikiProject template specifiy this? By the way, your examples there are both easily explained away as (a) holland is incorrect, even informally, and (b) 'America' is entirely contained within 'United States of America'. What we would really need to draw a precedent from is a country whose official name does not contain all the words from the the frequent, but correct name - East Timor and Greece would support your argument better. Morwen 19:17, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

As for Egypt, the nation's official English name is apparently "Arabic Republic of Egypt", which I feel is how the article should begin. However in light of the strong opposition to the change here I hesitate to edit there. Where is the project discussed? — Jor (Talk) 20:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. Morwen 20:41, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. — Jor (Talk) 21:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with these arguments in part, however by insisting on using the names West Germany vs East Germany the idea that these were not seperate states but rather two parts of one country is propagated — which undermines the legimity of both the pre-unification FRG and the GDR. (My use of "nation" in the first comment of this thread should probably be replaced with "country" — I am not 100% familiar with the exact meaning of the different terms). — Jor (Talk) 20:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. So what would be your preferred names for West Germany, South Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea, South Yemen, North Yeme and North Vietnam? :) Wikipedia consistently uses these forms as article names, even though they are not official. Morwen 20:41, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

West Germany: should be merged with Germany and its contents in the history, or moved to something like FRG 1945-1990. I see that the Vietnams, Koreas and Yemens follow the format I propose here, yet I'd still move them to their official names. Please note that I strongly favour keeping the colloquial terms as redirects of course! I am ńot suggesting East Germany be made into a disambiguation page, but I am suggesting that it not the be the article location as the nation was not called such! — Jor (Talk) 20:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The nation was called the German Nation. ;-) --Ruhrjung 20:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, especially with the former. Are you also advocating moving United States to United States of America or does this only apply to states with compass points in their names? By the way, if Germany should be merged with West Germany, North Vietnam should be merged with Vietnam. Morwen 20:50, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, USA should be at United States of America. And obviously yes, North Vietnam should be merged with Vietnam if the policy was to merge West Germany with Germany. — Jor (Talk) 21:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, West Germany should most certainly not be merged with Germany!

West Germany is as historically relevant as the Holy Roman Empire, the Hanseatic League, Deutscher Bund, Imperial Germany, the Weimar Republic, and the Third Reich!

— All of course according to my sincerest, but personal, opinion.

--Ruhrjung 20:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed it has historical reference, but the nation continued directly under the same name with the same government, so it should be treated as a historical entity — something like Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1990, with "West Germany" redirecting to it and a note in the history of the FRG page where this period can be found. — Jor (Talk) 21:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, we have an obvious conflict. How should that be solved?

(Meanwhile, you might want to read the articles on nation, state and country, please. ...Please!)

--Ruhrjung 21:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conflict? Sorry, I fail to see how discussing the FRG from 1945 to 1990 in its own article clashes with discussing the FRG as a whole. — Jor (Talk) 21:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conflict, yes, it seems so to me. Two or three, actually:

You want the East-Germany—West-Germany dichotomy to be less prominent by naming the articles Democratic Republic of Germany and Federal Republic of Germany, or something in that direction. I prefer status quo.
You think that plenty of country articles should have their formal long names (don't remember the exact English terminology right now, but the long form typically stated in CIA factbook. I think it's better to use the short forms most commonly known and used.
You think that "Germany formally under foreign occupation" and "Germany fully sovereign (after October 3rd 1990)" better are treated as similar entities, and hence should not have wikipedia articles of their own, only redirects. I wonder where that will end. Third Reich, Weimar Republic and Imperial Germany could well equally well be incorporated in that article too?

I find it highly unlikely that either you or I should be alone in our opinions, so we have the task in front of us to solve this difference somehow.

Any ideas how that could be done?

--Ruhrjung 21:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jumping back to the left...

You partially misunderstood: I want the states to be discussed at their proper names: West and East Germany must be kept as redirects, and the nicknames must be mentioned on the first line.
Yes, any state should be at its proper name: thus France (to take a neutral name) should be at French Republic, with a redirect from France.
No, Germany from 1945 to present should be discussed at Federal Republic of Germany. However, since it is desired, what you call West Germany and which actually is a page about the FRG from 1945 to 1990—as opposed to the German Democratic Republic—should be at Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1990 or a similarily titled article. Its contents can be what is now in West Germany! — Jor (Talk) 21:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proper name— by this I mean its official name in English. If no official English name exists I guess the CIA Factbook will work. — Jor (Talk) 21:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least that idea is consistent, although I find it otherwise unappealing. However, it would definitely amount to a change in long-established policy, as well as being an exception to the golden rule to 'use common names'. Please discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries and see if you can get a consensus.

Done. — Jor (Talk) 22:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

There is a mention of it, in the history section. Maybe making it more prominent would help more people accept the article? Morwen 21:24, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I think I was viewing the wrong revision. TDC 21:49, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Language from the platform of the PDS

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

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

typographical

this article is a mess, typographically and grammatically, due to its locked status. User:Badanedwa/ddr is my suggested cleaned-up version, without ideological modifications. Badanedwa 05:36, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

172, 02:31, Apr 30, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=East_Germany&diff=0&oldid=3391753 is heavy with pov and contains several glaring typographical mistakes. it seems to me to subvert page protection in a manner abusive of his position. it contains some facts which need adding, should not be entirely reverted. Badanedwa 01:38, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea about page protection, but I don't see how it's POV. Jor is a German expellee POV pusher, and is trying to avoid ever using the term "East Germany," because in his view that term refers to areas east of the German Democratic Republic. I'm also confused what the "glaring typographical mistakes" are. john 07:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page protected even? I don't remember this happening. 172 08:59, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

There was apparently a revert war a month ago. I'm going to remove protection. john 18:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

With no message? By now I'm hardly able to keep track of these things. 172 02:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

protection was left on too long. i am unfamiliar with jor's pov, and am not reiterating him. the expulsion/volkish pov is not the only reason to avoid that term, see below. Badanedwa 23:08, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Not only was protection on too long, but there was no message. I don't think this was a purposeful violation of rules by 172. john 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Name of the country again

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

"east germany" is a colloquialism, not the legal name, ergo should be "..., commonly called ...". the legal name is the inherently neutral one, anything else is both (possibly) pov, and unprofessional-looking to users. if it is itself controverted as the pov of the government which chose it, it can be replaced with "the name _____ was set by the [name of law] in [year] ..." in the first usage. this may be appropriate in this article: the ddr was a republik, wasn't democratische, and its citizens weren't uniformly deutsch in ancestry or language or religion.

the information regarding the markt is likely being inserted as part of the pov war, but is accurate and should be retained. Badanedwa 22:59, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

As user 82.83.132.165 stated further above, the term "markt" is a typo, meaning market in German. It should be "mark" or "march" instead. -- Doodee 12:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

i failed to note the native name in the box, that may obviate it in the intro. Badanedwa 03:58, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why nobody complained about the suggestion here for a week, and then when I decided to go through it, it was reverted in eight minutes. Wik is welcome to explain why the current version is better. -- Jao 13:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Read up on this page, this has been discussed months ago. East Germany is the most common name, that's why it's naturally first. The usual format should be "<common name>, officially <official name>, is...". --Wik 14:09, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

The Republic of Korea (ROK; Korean: Daehan Minguk (Hangul: 대한 민국; Hanja: 大韓民國)) : 大韓民國)), commonly known as South Korea

North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Vietnamese Việt Nam Dân Chủ Cộng Hòa), also known as North Vietnam

The Republic of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Việt Nam Cộng Hòa), also known as South Vietnam

The Federal Republic of Germany or FRG (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland or BRD), informally known as West Germany

It looks like policy is pretty inconsistent on this. Personally, I think the official name should come first - that's what we do for personal names, where we list the full name, and then the commonly known as name. john 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Never mind my last posting. I thought people were talking about moving the article. 172 17:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought this might be an issue to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, so I added it there. Let's see if something comes out of it... (And yeah, I'm with john on this, if you didn't notice.) -- Jao 18:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Did anything come of this? I haven't found any trace of a guideline or policy on this. A sample of countries and wikis suggests no consensus, and we could probably do with one. Rd232 19:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For personal names, we usually list the full name only, we don't say "George Walker Bush, commonly known as George W. Bush", we just list the full name, with the common name evident from the title. I think we should do the same for countries where the common short form is entirely contained in the long form, e.g. "The Republic of X is...", not "The Republic of X, commonly known as X, is...". However, where there are different names like East Germany and German Democratic Republic, the name that is used for the article title should be mentioned first in the text. --Wik 20:56, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was mostly thinking of peers. For instance, our article at Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh opens

Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, (June 18, 1769 - August 12, 1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh

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

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

Totalitarian Communist state?

Another round of this, but you know the article on Skunk doesn't have stink til about the 10th paragraph. Fred Bauder 01:00, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

Fred, quit trying to open up the same can of worms over and over again. Let's stick with formal government types and formal encyclopedic categories. Communist state says enough, referring to a party and a state that are embedded in each other, based on Marxism-Leninism. 172 07:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll open this can once for every person who died. That's 100 million times. Fred Bauder 12:35, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Elections in the GDR

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

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

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

Country name (yet again)

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

I'm fine with it if you do the same to West Germany also. Ruy Lopez 05:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. West Germany describes WG properly as an informal name for the western part of the current German state in the second half of the twentieth century, linking to the main FRG page. (Could do with some editing but anyway.) It's probably better to leave it as it is than to move all relevant FRG historical information to West Germany, despite the implication of historical inevitability; there's a good case that despite the addition of 16m people the FRG is still practically the same state as before 1989 (certainly it is legally). In fact although the case is clearly weaker, it might be an idea to move the current East Germany to German Democratic Republic and have a similar page at East Germany specifically about the informal name and its usage. Comments? Rd232 10:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree absolutely... Abe Lincoln 20:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most commonly used name. Note that the example cited, People's Republic of Poland, is a historical entity. The current "Republic of Poland" is at Poland. older≠wiser 01:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia convention is inconsistent between preferring proper names and most-commonly-used names, but the balance favours the former for countries/places/people, which is as it should be for an encyclopaedia. The major exception is currently-existing countries which tend to reside at the officially-accepted short form. "East Germany" being a form not accepted by the country in question means it does not meet this criterion. (Furthermore, in both English and, especially, in German, official use of the term 'East Germany' was intended as an act of propaganda to deny the legitimacy of the GDR as a separate state - something enshrined in the West German constitution. This usage is less clear in English because the term GDR/German Democratic Republic would often need to carry the bracketed thought ("that's not the one that's actually democratic"), where in German people would know this. So there are also POV issues with the term.) See my comment above on the current West Germany page which I think is a good model for treating informal names that differ significantly from the proper name. Rd232 10:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Discussion from WP:RM

East Germany → German Democratic Republic

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

What would be so bad about that? Certainly, in terms of "last things we need" such a scenario falls some way below, say, Microsoft deciding to make Encarta free online and sue Wiki for infringement of Microsoft's right to rule the known universe... ;-) Rd232 14:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. Even the Ostis call themselves Ostis, not Demokratischers. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no such word as "Osti"; it's Ossi (informal name), counterpart to Wessi; both originally disparaging and can still be used disparagingly depending on tone. In any case, if you appeal to the German usage, the country is near-as-dammit always referred to as DDR. Major exceptions are colloquialisms like "Osten" (East) or sometimes "Früher" (Earlier) (i.e. before the 1989/90 Wende). Rd232 15:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economy of East Germany

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

Communist State/ Totalitarian State Debate

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

I would prefer socialist state. Marxist-Leninist state would also be fine. Communist state would be less than ideal and totalitarian state would be very bad. Everyking 07:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideally it should be both socialist and Marxist-Leninist in some non-clumsy phrasing, together with a comment that in the West it was usually described as "communist". Totalitarian shouldn't be in the introduction - but if it has to be, it has to be clearly ascribed to a certain POV and not written as fact. (It's just too loaded and judgemental for an encyclopedia intro, where we don't have room for proper explanation and context.) Possibly there should be a section to look at these issues in more detail, something like Relationship with the West, or Western Attitudes. Rd232 08:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This form of government (both its ideal form and its real manifestations) used to be called "people's democracy" (google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22people%27s+democracy%22&btnG=Google+Search)), and still is in the official name of North Korea. I remember it used as a neutral term, i.e. neither endorsing nor disparaging. Zocky 14:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:East_Germany"