Talk:History of Germany

Contents

1 Outdated stuff 2 Battle at Teutoburg forest 3 Reworking this page 4 Confederation of the Rhine 5 Konrad Adenauer 6 Lead paragraphs 7 Where's this article headed? 8 Czechoslovakia? What Czechoslovakia? 9 Biases in Heimdal's version 10 Red Army Faction... should be Fraction?

Outdated stuff

Moved outdated stuff to Talk:History of Germany/Archive1. djmutex 18:45 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Battle at Teutoburg forest

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

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

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

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

Reworking this page

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

Confederation of the Rhine

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

Konrad Adenauer

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

Lead paragraphs

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

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

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

Where's this article headed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czechoslovakia? What Czechoslovakia?

---

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

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

Biases in Heimdal's version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Army Faction... should be Fraction?

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

The English article says that the correct translation should be "fraction" but I'm not too sure about that translation, so see this English-German language forum (http://dict.leo.org/cgi-bin/dict/forum.cgi?action=show&group=forum003_correct&file=20050424143509&sort_order=&list_size=30&list_skip=0) for a discussion (just begun) Saintswithin 12:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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