Talk:East Germany/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Move discussion in progress

Closing this before someone gets their feelings hurt or blocked. The matter has previously been settled. Continuing to beat this dead horse might be seen as WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:STICK. WP:HEAR or any number of other acronyms and/or shortcuts. For dog's sake, let us just move forward. You don't have to agree, you just have to comply with the will of the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:West Germany which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed with no move, based on the discussion here, forum shopping and, of course, WP:COMMONNAME. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the GDR was recognized in the early 1970s, all reliable soruces from the CIA to Encyclopedia Britannica have called their articles about it the "German Democratic Party." No longer did they see it as the eastern sector of the German Federal Republic. We are now in the 21st century, not the 1950s, and nostalgia for the Cold War should not guide us in naming articles. Let's follow WP:COMMONNAME and avoid WP:LABEL. TFD (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Time to move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@ TFD. It’s a useless discussion so much for quality information and Wikipedia’s educational purpose – at least children using the simple English version of Wikipedia will arrive in the 12st century. Others like the Danish, Afrikaans, Spanish, French,Finnish or Kiswahili Wikipedia have had the sense to differ between common name and commonly used name – hence between proper and not so proper. As a child I was told naming things properly can help to avoid dropping a brick in certain situations. But here you go some are stuck in the Cold War … maybe it is for nostalgic reasons who knows. Wonder who has moved on since. Still beats me why the article on the United States is not called “America” as this is the common name for it. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dropping a brick" can be avoided by using terms that the vast majority of people are familiar with, not simply sticking to precise formal names out of misplaced pedantry. Pyrop e 17:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And that’s why I and others suggested to use a redirect – type in East Germany end up with the proper name – uhhh learning in progress - bad that is. But as I said some confuse “Common” with ignorance and vice versa. And that is precisely that for what disambiguation links are used. Nearly 25 Years after unification the terms West and East Germany are also being used to describe what once was the old FRG and GDR but in the year 2014 and not 1990. And the vast majority will commonly also use the term America meaning the US. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not "misplaced pedantry" on our part to use the same article titles that are typically found in reliable sources. And readers who come to this article typically click on the link for "German Democratic Republic," not "East Germany." TFD (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually in June 2014, "East Germany" had 70,654 Wikipedia views, while "German Democratic Republic" had a grand total of 8,287. From the "reader choice" level, East Germany is more than eight times as likely as German Democratic Republic. [1]. This suggests that the Wikipedia users as a group expect to find the article at "East Germany" by a landslide. Collect (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see ignorance is a matter of choice then is it? Dull and duller? Many other Wikipedias in non-English language have had the same “problem” but decided to use the correct term same goes for English speaking non-Wikipedia resources. I am really beginning to wonder what the real reason is why not to use a redirect? This is utter Cold War language nothing more and nothing less and it makes me wonder what Wikipedia’s purpose is? To even support ignorance and smattering?? --Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Views for East Germany includes views for Germany Democratic Republic, because it is a re-direct to East Germany. Also, many blue-lighted references to the German Democratic Republic are piped to East Germany. (See the Germany article for example.) So the estimate that 70,000 readers are typing in "East Germany" is overstated. TFD (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In which case - subtracting the entire 8 thousand as you suggest - the ratio is still 62 thousand to 8 thousand - seems definitive proof that Wikipedia users use "East Germany" overwhelmingly. Collect (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay I see it is more important to some to give more weight to the information that one seeks rather to the information that one is presented with? The views still do not justify why a redirect should not be put in place. There once was a time where a majority thought that the burning of witches was a legitimate punishment … even in what was once called “the colonies”.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to serve readers. Using the terms the readers search on is, per Wikipedia policy, more important than using a name which the readers are not familiar with at all. We have an article on Water and a redirect from H2O. Collect (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, we cannot distinguish between re-directs and original enquiries. If someone clicks on "German Democratic Republic" in the Germany article it counts as a view of the "East Germany" article because it directs there. All we can say with certainty is that 70,000 people viewed this article, and it were called "German Democratic Republic", it would still receive 70,000 views. TFD (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Using that 'logic' the article could be called "Erich Honecker's Magic Funland" and still receive 70,000 views, but that doesn't mean renaming it so makes any sense whatsoever. All you can say is that there were more than 70,000 views of this page, of which only 8000 found it through a search for "German Democratic Republic". That's still a very small proportion in the grand scheme of things. Using your own example, the Germany page uses the term "German Democratic Republic" a sum total of one time, and that in a section titled "East and West Germany". Pyrop e 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No matter what the article is called it will receive the same number of views. But your implication that 60, 000 or 70,000 readers found the article through typing in "East Germany" ignores the fact that many, possibly most, readers find the article through clicking on a link. For example, click "German Democratic Republic" and voila! you go to "East Germany" without going through any re-direct. And now we have 70,001 views for "East Germany" vs. still only 8,000 for "German Democratic Republic." TFD (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Um -- try looking at this again. The redirect page - which is arrived at only by choosing "German Democratic Republic" gets only 8 thousand total clicks in a month. The main page ("East Germany") gets 70 thousand views in a month - including the 8,000 redirects (?). There is no comparison - the vast ginormous majority of readers get here directly to the "East Germany" title. You appear to assert that the renamed link is found in a great many places on Wikipedia - which is the only way one would find the catenated link. So lets look at the Wikipedia internal links. "East Germany" is found in about 12 thousand locations. "German Democratic Republic" is found 2 thousand times. About 1,3000 of which use both names. In short - "German Democratic Republic" is found sans "East German" about 700 times total in all of Wikipedia. "East Germany" sans "German Democratic Republic" is found about 21 thousand times - or about 30 times as often.

Your postulated catenation is found precisely 54 times in all of Wikipedia - making the claim that any substantial number of readers click on that catenated Wikilink is unsupportable utterly. (using the Wikipedia search function with its limitations). Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Again it was never intended to delete the name “east Germany” but to replace it with a redirect – is that too much of a thought to think about??? Is the purpose to foster ignorance at least in the English wikipedia??--Catflap08 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you please tell us how many readers reach "East Germany" by typing in "German Democratic Republic", how many reach it by typing in "East Germany" and how many reach it by clicking on a link. Also, could you please explain how you drew that conclusion. TFD (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The numbers are given above for exactly what you seek - I demonstrated the catenated link you thought existed, doesn't exist in many places at all, that the general tern on Wikipedia is "East Germany" and that the redirect page gets 8k views a month, while the main page gets (subtracting the linked page views entirely) 62k views a month. This page has previously seen Google counts, Questia counts (scholarly articles), Google Scholar counts, HighBeam counts, NYT counts, etc. Not a single one of which supports an article move whatsoever. None. Nada. Nihil. Zero. And this was decided over and over and over now - at this point it is tendentious to assert anything other than what has been found true over an over and over. The word "forumshopping" does not begin to show how this iterated discussion is viewed by others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The stubbornness with which some in here hold on to terms that do no longer reflect the year 2014 puts any stubborn Prussian civil servant to shame. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

...says the person using the name of a state that hasn't existed in any real sense since 1934. Hmm. Pyrop e 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese Empire ended in 1912, yet people still call civil servants mandarins. TFD (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is over and I think we're breaking Wiki protocol re-opening it so soon... Can an admin please comment. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with Bermicourt. Let's bury the dead horse, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Notice Placed

When I read this article, I was astounded how slanted it is, at least in the introductory section. It reads like it was written by a member of the long-discredited Socialist Unity Party (SED). For example it claims Soviet Troops were stationed in the DDR to counter the US military presence in the BRD. You have to be very naive to believe that. It also minimizes the dictatorial way in which the State controlled the people and economy of the DDR. "Central planning" was a euphemism for central control, but the currrent intro takes "central planning" as no more than planning. The article needs substantial rewriting to achieve a more accurate result. --Zeamays (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SoFixIt - I would suggest making the changes you propose. Often these articles are written by well-intentioned folks who are just trying to be balanced. However, due to the general lack of the knowledge of the brutality of the Soviet regime, or even it's control over it's satellites (such as the DDR), it's likely that much of the propaganda is still being taken at face value. Some good books have come out in the past few years which lay the facts bare. Considering the lack of activity on this article, it needs to be adopted. Just needs an editor to go through and cite! Lexlex (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be based on sources. If you think the article does not reflect the sources, then please point to where they differ. The fact that the sources used do not approach the topic from an anti-Communist viewpoint does not mean they are pro-Communist. And if you want to challenge the view that the Soviets stationed so many troops there to counter U.S. troops in West Germany, you need to explain why they had almost 10 times as many troops in the GDR as in Poland, or why the U.S. concentrated its European forces in West Germany, of course providing the appropriate sources. TFD (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Soviets merely wanted to counter US forces in the BRD is so absurd that it is surprising that a fair-minded person would so-state. Of course Wikipedia is reference-based, but it also assumes that fair-minded editors will contribute both sides of disputes, not relying on other editors to counter POV statements. Rather than attempting to document the obvious, which can be difficult, I will simply delete the offending POV text, and await a balanced presentation. --Zeamays (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"The USSR . . . maintained military forces in East Germany until 1994"

It is definitely not possible that the USSR maintained forces in East Germany until 1994, because East Germany dissolved in 1990 and the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

70.171.0.116 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What about "the USSR and later Russia?" While the German Democratic Republic was dissolved, the area under its control, East Germany, was absorbed into the Federal Republic. TFD (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

After the dissolution of the USSR, Russia kept it's military forces in former East Germany until 1994. It's well explained in the article Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. So, I agree with The Four Deuces. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

STRONG objection to wording of paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 reads, in part: "Prices of basic goods and services were set by central government planners, rather than fluctuating based on the whims of a capitalist market."

This is exactly the opposite of what logic would dictate. Prices in a free market fluctuate based on **empirically proven market forces**, not the "whim" of some obscure random influence. The word "whim" actually better describes the mentioned central planning: the planners do not have possession of the price signals generated by the interactions of an actual market, therefore it is the planners who base prices on "whim". -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some strong, almost socialist apologetic POV in this article. It really needs a through review. is there such a tag for such a thing? Lexlex (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article is (still) not NPOV but in wide parts more or less subtle tendentious. A lot of statements are quite exaggerated, to say the least. --91.57.212.23 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

satellite state

is east germany a satellite state and should be described as such as all other eastern bloc states articles? 95.128.118.58 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No Your edit put this information into the info-box. Info-boxes should only be used for straight-forward non-contested information. TFD (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No The Four Deuces has explained why. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No - agree with the above users. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

See template documentation. The value of the status field is not displayed in the infobox. Rather, the value of the field is intended to be chosen from an enumeration of possible values listed in the template documentation, with the purpose of assigning a category. In this case, the appropriate value would be "Satellite", which would assign Category:Soviet satellite states. However, this uses the default sort order, listing the country under "E". Since it is to be listed under "G", Germany, East is included explicitly as a category statement; so the infobox status field should be removed or left empty (preferably with a comment explaining this).--Boson (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No Per Four Deuces. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The correct name of the former state is DDR/GDR

This article should refere to the former sovreign state of DDR recognised as a soveriegn state by most countries in the world including the BRD, and later merged into iBRD as new member states of BRD.

The title East Germany is a geographical term and has nothing to do with the sovereign state of DDR, more thamn its location. The specific characteristics of DDR was not that it ws the eastern part of todays BRD but the political body of the DDR, everything that has to be mensioned about DDR is its political body and its name is DDR (not GDR that is an English translation and should be refered to as englsih expression of the name DDR together with the full name of it.

There are certainly people that did not like to (and do not like to) recognised DDR as a soveriegn recognised state, but Wikipedia is not in the political argumentation business. We just observe there was a sovereign internationally recognised state DDR that ended and its reains merged into the BRD as new federal states of the BRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

East Germany is still existing today as a number of fedral states in the BRD and DDR do not exsist today, and DDR is the topic here and not East Germany. The title shoudl be DDR and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We use common names on Wikipedia. Thus, the article "Mexico" (the common name in English) rather than "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (the official "correct" name of the country). In English, people almost always referred to Deutsche Demokratische Republik as "East Germany". In more official contexts, "German Democratic Republic" was sometimes used. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal international documents in English, such as the English text of the Helsinki Declaration, use the term "German Democratic Republic". "East Germany" is a common informal term for the same country. The term Deutsche Democratische Republik, or DDR, is correct in German, but it is like calling the Soviet Union the "Sovetsky Soyuz". Sovetsky Soyuz is quite correct in Russian but not at all common in English. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

When is this perennial discussion going to stop? Have either of you bothered to look at the pages and pages and pages of talk archives here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to stop the discussion, Kudpung? 37.247.9.228 has made a GF comment about the article, which SummerPhD, Rjensen and I have responded to. Isn't that what talk pages are for? Re your other question, yes, I did have look at the talk page archives.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"correct" in Wiki language means what the RS in English actually use. They use "East Germany." The role of editors at Wikipedia is to follow the RS as closely as possible. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand these arguments when the country still exists, but c'mon, it's over... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article still has to be renamed. Let's finally do it! Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be contrary to the consensus repeatedly established here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Claiming this article is about East Germany (like Northern Germany), but really, this is about a former country ... are you kidding me? Totally misleading and no discussion needed, sorry. I just wanted to move it to German Democratic Republic but I can't find the button to do it?!?! How is that done? --93.133.91.119 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on Reliable Secondary Sources as of 2013, and they mostly prefer "East Germany" as the books in the bibliography demonstrate. Legalistic arguments made up by editors off the top of their heads as presented above carry no weight in Wikipedia--only reliable secondary sources, please.

Neither the abbreviations DDR nor BRD were recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany. Those abbreviations were used in communistic propaganda exclusively. So far I know, no Western Country has recognized, considering the Hallstein Doctrine the East German State officially. Flk-Brdrf (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bundesrepublik Deutschland was(/is) the official German language title of the Federal Republic of Germany. Why would they refuse to recognize the acronym "BRD" (or FRG in English) makes about as much sense as the United States objecting to the acronym "USA" ? As for the DDR/GDR/East Germany/Whatereveryerhavinyerself all names are equally valid just like US/USA/The United States/America (just don't tell the Canadians :-) ) Everyone understood that West Berlin was geographically in the Eastern part of Germany but (obviously) wasn't in "East Germany" 94.0.215.193 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are

asking for information on what the opponents of the term BRD said about it
asking for speculation on why it might have been stigmatized, or
doubting that the abbreviation was stigmatized.

ad 1) It was claimed that the term was a "Communist invention" that removed the word "Germany", aimed at establishing or reinforcing the "a division between the two parts of Germany and negating the idea of a single German nation.

ad 2) According to the government of that entity, the short form of "Federal Republic of Germany" was (and is) "Germany"; the term referred to the whole of Germany, though part of its territory was temporarily under "foreign" administration (oversimplifying).

ad 3) There are many sources that refer to the stigmatization of the term BRD.

The stigmatization was not universal and did not last until re-unification.--Boson (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw: Even the Simple English Wiki calls it simple:German Democratic Republic. As well as practically any other wiki in the respective language. The Cold War era is over, ladies. I say: Let's finally move it! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections prospected, I'm making the move of this page in about 3 days. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review the many objections made in the talk page archives. I will revert any move that does not go through the formal requested moves process. —Kusma (t·c) 17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To repeat the objection I apparently didn't make: We use common names on Wikipedia. Thus, the article "Mexico" (the common name in English) rather than "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (the official "correct" name of the country). In English, people almost always referred to Deutsche Demokratische Republik as "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, 30 years ago, people did. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, today there is much less reason to refer to it. When it is referred to, though, people call it "East Germany". Google news search for "German Democratic Republic" gives 61 hits. "East Germany" is 4,680. "German Democratic Republic" on the first page of results is used by:

Today's Zaman
RT (blog)
World Politics Review
Toronto Sun
Ottawa Community News
AllAfrica.com
The German Times Online ("as East Germany was officially known")
Insidethegames.biz (blog)
BDlive
The Media Co-op (blog)

"East Germany" is used by:

Huffington Post
The Local.se
AFP
The Malay Mail
Deutsche Welle
Morning Star
Reuters
Haaretz
Santa Maria Times (blog)
Fresno Bee

In the blubs on the search result page, 4 of the first 10 "German Democratic Republic" pages explain that it is the formal/official name of East Germany. 0 of the 10 "East Germany" blubs give "German Democratic Republic". On its page for "Germany" (that's what most people call the "Federal Republic of Germany"), the CIA World Factbook says, "West Germany and East Germany unified on 3 October 1990". Yes, the Toronto Sun used "German Democratic Republic", but Reuters, Huffington Post, Wired, The Guardian, Business Week, Time and a host of others currently favor "East Germany", the current common name for the former country. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since most of the blatantly uninformed, ignorant and buttlazy journalists come here first, of course they tend to use East Germany - since that's the Wiki lemma. ;) To me as an East German, it's simply insulting to be called upon in the same breath with a highly criminal and autocratic state. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the common name for things. That you feel the vast majority of journalists are whatever is irrelevant. I do not believe that Reuters, Time, AFP, etc. turn to Wikipedia to set their manuals of style, but it's a moot point. That you feel there is a great wrong to be righted by avoiding a possible linguistic connection is also a moot point. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. We're not living behind the iron curtain anymore and I won't give up on this, no matter how long it takes. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the "correct name". This is not about your feelings. This is not about outlasting anyone who would dare to oppose you. To change this and have it stick, you need to do one of two things:

1) Change Wikipedia's policy on the matter, which you see to have no interest in following or

2) Change common usage in English in the majority of reliable sources (I'd suggest starting with Reuters and Time).

This topic has failed repeatedly for years because it seeks to carve out a very local exception to a long-standing policy of broad applicability. If you manage to change it at any point through any other method, it will eventually be reverted to conform with our policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I have to agree with User:SummerPhD. This is the English language version of Wikipedia. In West Germany (FRG) East Germany was most of the time referred to as DDR (GDR) or amongst older people “die Zone” (the zone). In the English speaking world however the GDR was most commonly referred to as East Germany. If you feel insulted by that is not really Wikipedias problem as the term East Germany does not hold the sort of negative connotations you might associate with the term “Ostdeutschland”. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all water under the bridge. Give it some more years and you won't be argueing like that anymore. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the term for the East German mark was generally "OstMark" in the west -- not "DDRMark" or the like. And Merkel does not generally refer to "DDR" at this point either - I suspect the English usage is not going to change in the near future at all, especially since the former DDR government officials stated it was not actually an independent state. Collect (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The correct name ist German Democratic Republic, not East Germany or Ostdeutschland. --Label5 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the proper name is "Deutsche Demokratische Republik". However, we use the common name in English language sources which is "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the examples on the page that SummerPhD cited really applies to the case of the German Democratic Republic. The common names listed there were or are used (in the case of persons and countries) with the permission and sometimes even on request of their bearers. These people or countries simply call themselves by these names. Other examples are accepted versions in other languages, officially used abbreviations, or in the case of the scientific examples, so-called trivial names that are generally accepted also by scientists. The use of "East Germany", however, was frowned upon by the GDR government, as it was considered crude and insulting, and in diplomatic circles (whom we - in my opinion - should follow in such cases, because they are the experts!) the country was called "German Democratic Republic" (not the "East German ...") or short "GDR". Under this name, the country was a member of the United Nations. There was no official short or "common" form of the country's name as there is e.g. in the case of Poland, Mexico or France. The currency changed names over the course of time, but was never officially called "Ostmark", either. - Likewise, the use of "West Germany" is also incorrect, the country should be called the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) (not "... of West Germany") - this is also the correct long form of the name of today's Germany, although in this case the use of the short form is appropriate. The use of search engine results is flawed in this case, as these results are based on (often deliberately) incorrect terminology. Let's not follow bad examples from the increasingly distant past. --178.3.245.213 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief what harm is done by calling the article “German Democratic Republic” and redirect “East Germany” to the article? Thereby the reader can still search the commonly used name “East Germany” AND -god beholds- indeed learn that the official was different. Bit of a catch 22 situation here--Catflap08 (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What harm is done by following our policy, using the common name and redirecting from "German Democratic Republic"?

Should we move apple to Malus domestica and Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton? Where should Mexico go? México, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, United Mexican States, Estados Unidos Mexicanos de America, United Mexican States of America, Ciudad de Mexico, Distrito Federal, Federal District, District of the Federation, República Mexicana or Mexican Republic?

Long story short: We have a policy. If you would like to do something different, we need a better reason than "Why not?" - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Its over 20 years since that state seized to exist east Germany its now the geographical description of the eastern parts of Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) – a look at the map helps a bit . Simple as that. In the light of the cold war this childish naming game may have made sense for some now it just seems rather redundant. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the article is named "East Germany". This appears to agree with our policy: WP:COMMONNAME. To change the name of this article, there are three approaches I can think of:

1) Demonstrate that the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) is something other than "East Germany". (Others have looked into this, as discussed above. I don't think you have much hope here.

2) Work to change our policy. You will need a sizable consensus from throughout the project. The new policy will have to have some mechanism for dealing with issues like Mexico/México/Estados Unidos Mexicanos/United Mexican States/Estados Unidos Mexicanos de America/United Mexican States of America/ Ciudad de Mexico, Distrito Federal/Ciudad de Mexico/Distrito Federal/Federal District/District of the Federation/República Mexicana/Mexican Republic or whatever you think we should call the country most English speakers call "Mexico". This will involve a lot of long nights. You'll need lots of 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione.

3) Demonstrate that this topic is -- in some fundamental way -- different and merits an exception to our policy. A big pitfall here is special pleading. In addition to explaining why you feel we should change this article, you'll need to deal with the clear reasons for leaving it the way it is. Additionally, should we change Soviet Union to "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or "Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik" or "Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик"? Why or why not?

Pick one of those options and pursue it if you wish. Repeatedly saying (essentially) "Please change it" won't get it done. The three options above at least could work. Good luck, you'll need it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from, but how does one refer to east Germany in 2014 – appart from simply calling it eastern Germany? In this I mean the east of Germany and what formerly also once was the GDR? In Germany's current affairs east and west Germany is still an issue. I do get the point to consider commonly or colloquially used names via disambiguation page, but why not simply use the names under which countries are or were present in the UN? Its like reinventing the wheel. Same goes for instance for the infobox in the article on West Germany. Its factually wrong. In the Infobox it reads “Federal Republic of Germany” and that it existed until 1990 – this is false, as the the Federal Republic of Germany founded in 1949 still exists, the five New states of Germany simply acceded the Federation. So do carry on if you like but both articles do contain factual errors. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How one refers to eastern Germany is not at issue here (and "western Virginia" vs. West Virginia hasn't really been an issue over the past 150 years). (If you are going to insist on proper names, I'd assume you'd say "east (or eastern) Federal Republic of Germany". The issue here is WP:COMMONNAME. If you find fault with other articles, you will want to address those issues in those articles.

You and I do not agree on how we should determine the name to be used in the article. I believe you will find the general consensus supports my view. I am confident current policy supports my view. I've outlined the ways I believe you might be able to rename this article. I believe your chances are slim, but they are the only options I see. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if I look up the term German Democratic Republic other sites name the term „East Germany“ as a synonym or merely a byname. In the end its not about Bill or William and so forth, but also that an articles title should be precise see: WP:CRITERIA WP:PRECISE. GDR defines a state that used to exist with no doubt. East or Eastern Germany will tend to confuse matters even more so in times to come. I mean some call the toilet commonly a bog still would be a bit odd to have that as the name for the article on toilets. Even in English the official name however was GDR – that is a fact. But do as you please.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The majority of reliable English language sources use "East Germany" and "toilet", not "German Democratic Republic" or "bog". As a result, Wikipedia uses East Germany and toilet even though the official name or the word used by some people might be different. If the majority of reliable English language sources called them "The Italian Chiefdom of Czar George W. Bush IV" and "electric fishwater boxes" Wikipedia would use those names. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Having said that some people commonly say Holland and mean the Netherlands. In this case the commonly used name properly describes a Dutch province in Wikipedia. Sorry your arguments do not make sense.I would call the Encyclopedia Britannica to be quite a reliable English language source by the way--Catflap08 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Common name says that neutrality should be considered. AFAIK this is the only country article that uses a derogatory title. Western nations used the term "East Germany" because they refused to accept the legitimacy of the GDR but changed their position after Ostpolitik. Common name also says, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register...." Encyclopedia Britannica calls its article "German Democratic Republic",[2] as I imagine would most mainstream political encyclopedias and dictionaries published in the last 40 years. Note also that is more persuasive to present the appearance of neutrality when writing articles. If an article begins with a biased presentation then readers may question the neutrality of the overall article. If for example one picked up an article about Red China, Communist China or Mainland China, one would be less inclined to believe it. TFD (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! Strictly speaking even the article “West Germany” should be deleted or rather merged with the an article on Federal Republic of Germany as if things are done correctly Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany are not necessarily the same thing from an historic point of view. In the end one could expect form Wikipedia to educate than just reflect what some call common knowledge. But this may be too much for some to bear. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"East" is derogatory?!?! I'm guessing the same powers favor West Virginia over East Timor. Should we rename West Germany because it it laudatory? What was the non-derogatory name for East Berlin? I, for one, have MUCH stronger emotions tied to "Nazi" than "East". Nevertheless, I find the title "Nazi Germany" to be descriptive and in accord with WP:COMMONNAME.

As we do not use "Red China" or "Communist China" and Mainland China is an explanation of the use of the term, we're wandering into straw man territory.

Yes, Britannica uses "German Democratic Republic" as the main title for its one sentence article on the subject. In substantial articles throughout, though, they slip into that supposedly derogatory "East Germany". For what it's worth (which isn't much), they prefer "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" over our Soviet Union.

Yes, WP:COMMONNAME does say that "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful", the main point remains that "...the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred."

As I previously mentioned, the CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Huffington Post, Wired, The Guardian, Business Week, Time and a host of others currently favor "East Germany".

Another Google news search gives me 63 uses of "German Democratic Republic", with 2 of the first ten being blogs using the term like this: "This is why totalitarian North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, why the police state of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic..."

A similar search for "East Germany" nets me thousands. (Google scholar is 129,000 verses 258,000. Regular Google is 435,000 verses 227,000,000.) Looking through the results very few of the "East German" ones are referring to a geographic portion of the current country, many of the "German Democratic Republic" results are East Germany results with parenthetic explanations that "German Democratic Republic" is the official name.

The WP:COMMONNAME is clearly "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest the article on “West Germany” is, excuse my wording, complete BS anyway. Wrong from beginning to Start as the Federal Republic of Germany has not seized to exist since 1949. Maybe you should refrain from the matter if it overexerts your knowledge on history, constitutional and international law. By all means Wikipedia should meet at least some standards and it might be a good idea to get editors involved versed on the matter. Arguing with West / East Timor, West Virginia and Bill vs William does not really help matters either. But the state of both articles West Germany and East Germany is somewhat sad and pathetic and does if anything bears testimony of simple and utter dilettantism.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So as the user:SummerPhD seems the only one to uphold the articles name I have now asked for third opinions on the matter. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone lets say born in in the year 2000 looks up the term “East Germany” he or she should be led to a site that either leads to eastern Germany, the five new sates of Germany or the GDR. The term “East Germany” was never official and even before the end of the Cold War not used in an official setting. It was colloquially used, yes, but repeating a mistake again and again does not make it correct. Same goes for West Germany the term is obsolete – the Cold War is over. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, your reply is all over the place. It is disingenuous to say ""East" is derogatory?!?!" "East Germany" is derogatory, and there is no need to explain why it is, merely that that was the intention. You hit the nail on the head when you quoted a blog in The Telegraph that explained "why the police state of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic..." The capital of the GDR btw was called "Berlin" or sometimes "Berlin Haupstadt der DDR". The state created from the British, American and French zones was called "Westberlin." TFD (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that "East Germany" is derogatory, you've stated that there is no need to explain why. This is absurd. There is nothing obvious here. Please explain your claim. That the blog states that the full name is laudatory is not evidence that the far more common name is derogatory. "The Greatest City in the World" is laudatory. "New York City" is not derogatory. You have also failed to explain why your favored Brittanica falls into the trap of using this supposedly "derogatory" name. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the use of the common name, the article on titles states "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." It looks like this applies in the present case. "East Germany", while "commonly used" for the GDR, is ambiguous, imprecise, and neither official nor neutral. Therefore this title is fraught with several problems, and should only retained as a disambiguation options. SummerPhD seems to have concentrated on the passage "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used ...", but has apparently not taken into account other sections of WP:COMMONNAME. Note also that (as stated above)in other cases so-called common names have been accepted by the people or countries bearing these names. For instance, the United Mexican States, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and the French Republic accept the short form of their countries' names. This was not the case with the GDR. --193.174.160.34 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)((spa|193.174.160.34}}

If the most common name, "East Germany", was problematic, we might look to the far less common "German Democratic Republic" or the even less common "GDR". This has not been demonstrated to be the case. There is no evidence of ambiguity or imprecision, only claims easily countered with simple Google searches that fail to find the supposed problem. The "official" name is not at issue. That name is "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" which is by no means common in reliable English-language sources. How the name is "not neutral" is neither explained nor demonstrated. The vast majority of reliable English-language sources see absolutely no problem with the name. As there is no reason to avoid the term (other than the insistence of a few editors who make various unsupported claims), we default to the most widely used name in reliable English-language sources: "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief ...--Catflap08 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Since you guys have been successful to end up any discussion on this article which is just SO bad beyond words belief. Same goes for the western counterpart. In times to come I will add some more links on trustworthy sources.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, guys, really. The point is mute. East Germany has never been a correct name for a country. It is a geographical, colloquial term. It is simply dis-information to name an article like this. What I find especially funny is that people start arguing about what "English sources" do. Erm, who cares? Why this is not relevant:

1) East Germany does still exist, it is a geographical description of a still existing country, i.e. the Federal Republic of Germany. This might also explain why there is still so many hits with current searches - because it still exists as a description, but not any real reference to a country. For example here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/world/europe/germany-migrants-refugees-pegida.html?_r=0 So if East Germany was a country, which no longer exists, how come it is still referred to by the Times? If it does still exist than this article is wrong claiming it does not exist. BTW this might also explain why there are so many hits for East Germany, but non for German Democratic Republic - the country ceased to exist long before the internet age.

2) The so called policy of naming things a common name, yeah... The example of "Apple" does not apply, because there is not "the apple", there would be numerous latin names for it. However usually it a distinguishment between them is irrelevant, so people say "I eat an apple". In difference to fruit, people also name their own, including their own countries. Ignoring these naming conventions is simply put very impolite. It is also funny that US natives use to be called "red indians" and in many parts of the world they still are - but still the article is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. Why? Also what do you think a T. Rex is more commonly referred to? As T. Rex or Tyrannosaurus? Well google says it is 100 to 4 for the former. Why is this then not the article title? If I google Fight East Germany vs. German Democratic Republic I get a 100 to 5, a better score, still this is handled differently. Why? Choosing a "common" name, even if it is not the chosen name by the group that is identified by it, does not really make sense.

3) The term is highly derogatory. The history of that is long and quite frankly - if you are not from the former GDR are dare you to judge that? East Germany suggests it is part of a common "Germany" and not a separate state. But it was a separate state, with own achievements, (great) flaws, important people and mainly an own history. Today the term is oddly enough used directly oppositely. "East Germany" is not the "real" Germany, it is less developed, people are not as smart and so on. Why do you use a derogatory term as an official article title? It suggests that East Germany was an official designation, which it was not. Proof, how about the opinion of former GDR people? Which you got here several times. Or how about this: http://ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/begriffe/ostdeutschland/ However of course, the western side does not have a large interest in analysing wording...

4) As mentioned before it is disinformative. East Germany is a collogquial term yes, but it did not start existing when Germany was divided into two parts. East Germany e.g. formerly was referring to all Prussian regions east of the Elbe river. An was also historically used that way. Why spread wrong information, even if it is common?

I find it very odd that this discussion is "decided" by people who simply do not know what they are talking about. The correct term is German Democratic Republic. Anyone who searches for East Germany can be forwarded. Btw the same is true for "West Germany". This is a term that was never used in any official manner or by the inhabitants.

Which btw makes it different to Mexico, few Mexicans refer to their country by the full name. No one on the GDR called their country "East Germany".

SummerPhD, you cite CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Huffington Post, Wired, The Guardian, Business Week, Time as sources. Well, all of them are biased in a political way. Especially the CIA World Factbook. Also press does use colloquial terms, e.g. "biebs" for Justing Bieber, but that does not mean it is informative.

--ZeroGRanger (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW here, lack of reason provided here, but also for apparent WP:FORUMSHOP because of the lack of consensus in the discussion above. In the prior discussion above, the closing comments by this requester clearly illustrates their lack of understanding of policy and guidelines of wikipedia, and is simply WP:POV pushing to implement this change. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

East Germany → German Democratic Republic – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGRanger (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose East Germany is the common name used in most English sources- Wikipedia favours the common name not the official name. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose WP:UCN is East Germany. WP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use official names just because they are official. WP:CONCISE the current name is shorter and common. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. It is known as East Germany. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on East Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on East Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"satellite state"

Why is East Germany (or any Warsaw Pact country) labelled a "satellite state of the Soviet Union"?

There was no formal such relationship, and the governments or sympathisers of the GDR or indeed USSR or other allies would never have embraced such a definition. For decades bodies like the UN recognised the countries of central and eastern Europe as fully sovereign. Of course we can speculate over how fictitious this was in terms of real power relations. All states, worldwide, ever, have existed in hierarchies in which some are effectively subordinate to others even if formally independent, and constrained in their freedom of action. Yet we can agree that Wiki pages on Pinochet's Chile or post-2003 Iraq shouldn't call them "satellite states of the bad imperialist USA", because that is not encyclopaedia territory.

Yes, obviously there are plenty of objective criteria on which basis a historian could argue that the GDR was effectively a satellite state, given the USSR's real or potential military presence and the political influence it bore. But that is just a prevalent interpretation among historians in certain countries, not a historical fact unto itself. The words "satellite state" themselves are strikingly POV, ideological and indeed journalistic. So they have no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbroder1988 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we discussed it earlier. Ambiguous terms should not be used in the info-box. It was part of Cold War that used existing pejorative terminology even though the situations were different. Historically in satellite states the existing elites would continue to govern but would enter into a subservient military alliance with the conqueror. Finland would provide a better example of this relationship, and of course the U.S. client states provided a better example of this model. TFD (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr Broder is obviously a socialist or communist. The amount of left wing writing at en-wiki is distressingly large. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: I dont see how that's relevant. Your language appears to be a personal attack against a user - you'd be well advised to avoid ad-hominems or other aspersions on an editor's political views, etc to make your point. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 04:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki follows the Reliable sources. Thousands of cites to "satellite" appear in the scholarly literature. some examples: 1) Concise Encyclopeida Of World History (2007) p255: says 1953 "was the first of the satellite uprisings." 2) The Death and Life of Germany by Tessler & Davidson - 1999: ", East Germany, unlike the rest of the satellite states "; 3) Germany and the United StatesPage 275 by Hans Gatzke - 1980 "East Germany's satellite status restricts its contacts not only with West Germany, but with the United States" 4) East Germany and Detente: Building Authority After the Wall by A. James McAdams - 1985 "he state was a weak and largely deferential satellite of the Soviet Union" 5) Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture p 144 ed by Stephen Sennott - 2004 - ‎"East Germany effectively was an internally run satellite of the USSR." etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change: GDR -> DDR

Throughout the article, references to parties use the party's initials within the mother language. This in mind, I find it nettlesome that references to the state are abbreviated as GDR even where the article's first sentence and #Naming_conventions mention DDR. Elsewhere on the interwebs I'm told that West Germany's government preferred FRG over BRD (which fact I haven't studied), but East Germany would have likely have no such preference, so if such a preference exists, that should be documented.

I suggest that all uses of GDR (except as appropriate in context) should be changed to DDR. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My memory seems to tell me that GDR was more commonly used in the '80s. Doing a google search, DDR comes up more often but there are some interesting anomalies on that search page. Several of the sites that come up when searching "DDR Germany" actually seem to be using GDR themselves.

From Der Spiegel's English site:

Homesick for a Dictatorship: Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life ... www.spiegel.de › English Site › Germany › Eastern Germany Jul 3, 2009 - Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two ... In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.

From the Guardian:

Back in the GDR: Berlin's East Germany museum | Travel | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com › Travel › Berlin holidays Mar 13, 2013 - The Berlin museum is a fascinating, if slightly contradictory, look back at life in the German Democratic Republic, capturing the ambiguities of ...

Probably best to just leave it as is. --Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism

The subsecion lacks basic informations - list of dioceses, structure of the church in GDR.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on East Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

East Germany =/= GDR-DDR

The "GDR"/"DDR" isn't identical or synonymous with East Germany. --154.69.16.25 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please check the talk archives (and WP:COMMONNAME). This topic has been repeatedly discussed to death. - SummerPhD (talk)

Using "East Germany" for the name of the country is a vulgarism and should therefore be avoided. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we add the "round in circles" template to this talk page so this doesn't keep getting brought up year after year. --Katangais (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Except consensus changes. The GDR was routinely referred to as East Germany until Ostpolitik, when the Federal Republic of Germany renounced its claim. Academic sources such as Springer then changed their terminology. As memories of the Cold War fade, who knows what future editors will decide. TFD

(talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that non-native speakers don't understand that, in English, "East Germany" and "eastern Germany" DO NOT mean the same thing. Just as "western Virginia" is distinct from "West Virginia". Looking through the archives, this has been a common misunderstanding.--Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"East Germany" may have never been official for the German Democratic Republic (DDR), but it was shorthand for the political system. It was never understood to include the 'western' sectors of Berlin never incorporated into the DDR at any stage of its existence. There is no regional status for territories of the DDR within the current Federal Republic even if the old 'internal border' delineates some of the federal states from each other. Today, 'eastern Germany' would easily include the former western sectors of Berlin due to the unification of the city as a political unit; this is distinct from "the former German Democratic Republic" or the "former East Germany". .Pbrower2a (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did East Germany fail?

The article doesn't address this.

Was it an economic failure?

Was it only the Russians that ever led it to exist in the first place?

It doesn't say much about the Stasi, but a government that needs a Stasi is terribly unpopular.

Why did "no one" emigrate from the west to the east?

If there had been a free election, what percent would have supported the East German government? (A guess.). deisenbe (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As the article mentions a free election was held in 1989, and won by the Christian Democrats who advocated reunion. And yes the Soviets created the GDR, again in the article. I agree though it would be interesting if the article explained the reasons for joining and the opposing views at the time, as well as on reflection. Incidentally some people did go from West to East, in particular Communists such as Honecker. TFD (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Was East Germany a failure? If so, why? Why did people vote in 1989 for reunification? deisenbe (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

there is an extensive literature on just this issue; but it is much contested, and strongly skewed by partisan standpoints. The SPD narrative is very different from that from the CDU/CSU. But the basic reason why East Germany failed was West Germany. East Germany was bankrupt and heavily in debt - but so too were most other East European regimes. But East Germany had the option of joining with West Germany, and wiping out its debts. On the other hand, it did not have the option of joining the EU as a separate state (so long as West Germany had a veto). TomHennell (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Could this be added to the article? deisenbe (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

it will need a published authoritative source. TomHennell (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

One good account is "In Europe's Name: Germany and the Divided Continent"(1993) by Timothy Garton Ash; which sets the collapse of East Germany in the context of West German Ostpolitik. The fundamental issue has sometimes been denoted 'The wende within the wende'. All the states of the former Soviet Bloc faced crises in the mid 1980s, as the Gorbachev reforms in the Soviet Union made clear that their regimes could no longer rely either on cheap Soviet energy, or on back-up Soviet repressive force. This ended communism as a totalitarian state organisation; but generally the states involved survived the change. But for East Germany, the pull of easy access to the Federal Republic (and of the Deutsche mark) proved irresistible. Hence the second wende. TomHennell (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We would want a more recent source that commented on the various views over the last almost 30 years. I think the GDR would have been viable as a separate state, just as the other post-Communist states were, but the belief was that living standards would increase with unification and there was no reason not to unify since the original division was caused by the Cold War which no longer existed. TFD (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a good source; then go ahead. I think you can make the case that in both Hungary and Poland, the economy was as badly indebted as in East Germany; and that in both the Communist regimes were equally discredited. But the point was made at the time; that Poland minus communism was still Poland, whereas East Germany minus communism was West Germany. TomHennell (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that I add material but commenting on what type of material could be included. Incidentally, in 1989 the GDR had a debt to GDP ratio of 12.9%, lower than West Germany and half that of Hungary or Poland. I don't think that was considered a major reason. TFD (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Total hard currency debt in 1989 was $26.5bn; which was more like 17% of GDP. (Official statistics for the GDR were always problematatic, as the regime insisted on defining the OM at parity with the DM). The problem though, was that repayments of this debt amounted to $4.5bn per year, which was 150% of annual GDR foreign currency earnings. Equivalent international debt crises in Hungary and Poland were to be resolved by programmes of austerity; but the GDR regime shied away from this. Moreover, the determination of the FDR government to effect currency union on the basis of 1:1 parity, totally destroyed any potential for repaying the debt by any other means than a West German bail-out; as all East German export industries became unsustainable overnight. But Kohl reckoned that the parity promise would win him the election, so that is what happened. TomHennell (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I was using the article Economy of the German Democratic Republic which quotes the 1990 CIA factbook as putting external debt at $20.6 billion. Even at $26.5 billion, it was still lower than Hungary and Poland. TFD (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

soviet role

I have reverted the following section; which appears to have major problems, and to have been hijacked by tendentious assertions:

"=== Soviet role === In 1945, the USSR declared the Soviet occupation zone to be a sovereign state^{[citation needed]} named the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic, established in 1949), while the Red Army and the Western Allies' occupation forces remained in place under the tripartite Potsdam Agreement (1945) which established the Allied Occupation of Germany.^[1]

The communist German Democratic Republic was established in the historic "Mitteldeutschland" (Middle Germany). Former German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers, mainly the Prussian provinces of Pomerania, East Prussia, West Prussia, Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, the eastern Neumark of Brandenburg, and a small piece of Saxony were thus detached from Germany. To compensate Poland for the USSR's annexation of its eastern provinces, the Allies provisionally established Poland's post-war western border at the Oder–Neisse line at the Yalta Conference (1945). As a result, most of Germany's central territories became the Sowjetische Besatzungszone (SBZ, Soviet Occupation Zone). All other lands east of the Oder–Neisse line were put under Polish administration, with the exception of historic northern East Prussia, which went to the USSR.^[2]"

Clearly the GDR was established under the control of Soviet occupation power. But I know of no basis for the claim that this had been prefigured in 1945. Moreover, much of the rest seems to have been reworked to support the polemical view that the territory of the GDR should be considered "Mitteldeutschland"; implying that the former eastern territories should still be counted as 'Eastern Germany". This is tricky, as before 1871 East Prussia and West Prussia were always regarded as outside Germany, strictly defined. But all this is really for the article on former eastern territories of Germany. Is there anything else in this para that is needful for this article? TomHennell (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

^ Debra J. Allen (2003). The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War. Greenwood. pp. 101–48.
^ Arthur Gunlicks (2003). The Lander and German Federalism. Manchester University Press. pp. 36–39.

Socialist vs. communist

It was proposed to change the main describing adjective from "socialist" to communist". I reverted since this was neither the self description of the GDR nor the commonly used description by others. Furthermore the GDR lacked most typical criteria of "communism". On the other hand I can't exclude that there are scientific papers calling the GDR "communistic". At least in the German speaking communities, both science and politics, "socialist" is the most often used term. --Nillurcheier (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is not the "self description of the GDR" but an encyclopedic article in the English language about East Germany. Your edits blatantly misrepresent the cited sources and ignore English language usage. There is also absolutely no reason why the lead shouldn't link to our article on this specific phenomenon, communist state, which covers East Germany and similar states. Statements like "I can't exclude that there are scientific papers calling the GDR 'communistic'" shows that you have not read the cited sources and that you are clearly unfamiliar with English language usage as far as East Germany is concerned. East Germany is called a communist state in English, as far as its form of government is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tataral. The standard scholarship includes Charles Maier, Dissolution: The crisis of communism and the end of East Germany (1999). the term "communist" refers not just to the socialized ownership but also its totalitarian control of society and politics. Rjensen (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

My reading is that current English language popular descriptions commonly describe East Germany as 'communist'; but that scholarly discussion tends rather to categorise it as a 'communist regime'; that is a state where the leading role of the communist party is constitutionally entrenched. This parallels scholarly usage in respect of other countries of the former 'Soviet bloc'; no scholar now would term post-war Poland or Hungary 'communist states'; since clearly the same states continue to the present, but without Communist party control. With East Germany, however, there may be a difference; as was stated at the time "Poland without communist rule is still Poland; but East Germany without communist rule is nothing". My own view is that 'socialist' is to be preferred; as this links across to the counterpart states of Eastern Europe , all of which are classed in Wikipedia as Socialist states, but I can see why some prefer 'communist'. TomHennell (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a navigation template Template:Communist Eastern and Central Europe that appears in many of the articles on the history of these states under communist occupation. The History of Poland (1945–1989) article has an infobox that refers to the period as "Communist Poland". The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic article has an infobox that refers to the period as "Communist era". Clearly Wikipedia is categorising such periods as "communist".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How do reliable sources like scholars, publishers, and editors handle the issue? Here are some relevant usages in recent scholarly book titles: 1) From Hitler to Ulbricht: The Communist Reconstruction of East Germany, 1945-1946 (2017); 2) Protestants in Communist East Germany: In the Storm of the World (2016); 3) Letters Over The Wall: Life in Communist East Germany (2015); 4) State and Minorities in Communist East Germany (2014). Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting citations - but do any of them support the specific formula "communist state"? Which is the point at issue. Checking in 'Born in the GDR' by Hester Vaizey (2014), I find she consistently prefers the formula 'socialist state' as applied to the GDR. And I think you will find that as common in scholarly discussion. The constitutions of the GDR, like the Basic Law of the FRG, were absolutely grounded in the principles of Rechtstaat, 'a state under the rule of law'; where the continuing state and the political regime are distinct entities. In the GDR this principle was systematically subverted to ensure the continued primacy of the SED party. Hence the GDR, post-1990, is commonly classified as an Unrechtstaat, an 'injustice state'. But this formula (since 1990) is always distinguished from that of a Nichtrechstaat, a 'non-justice state'. In an injustice state the independence of the state apparatus is potentially maintained, such that with removal of the oppressive regime, the state resumes functioning under the rule of law. In Vaizey's view, as I understand it, the actual functioing of power in the GDR might be better expressed as being a STASI-state; in that the Leninist operations of 'democratic centralism' in the GDR functioned through STASI secret channels, rather than the party. TomHennell (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

But are Poland and Hungary of today the same state as they were then? The same nation, yes, but "state" refers to the governmental/legal framework that runs the nation. Didn't that change at the end of the Cold War?--Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all; the regimes have changed, the states have remained. This was a consistent pattern across the countries of the former Soviet bloc in 1989; with the partial exception of Bulgaria, each proved to function much more like classic Rechtstaat that Cold War rhetoric would have expected. Even in Czechoslovakia, where the country itself broke up three years later. The absolute exception, of course, was East Germany after reunification; but there the apparatus of the GDR state was deliberately dismantled by the incoming FRG authorities, each FRG government department being given the option to retain or terminate their counterpart GDR public bodies and offices. Resulting in much redundancy and resentment (especially, and through effective discrimination, against women).TomHennell (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The term socialist was used by the regimes to describe their systems but it is disputed. The systems were not communist either, which would imply an absence of government. The commonality was rule by Communist Parties, which at one time were formally linked through Comintern. I would use a capital "C" though. (Of course the GDR provided a slight exception, since it was formally governed by a KDP/SDP union in coalition with four non-socialist parties.) TFD (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As above. No one dsiputes that East Germany was ruled by a communist regime. The point as issue is the formula 'communist state'.TomHennell (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If you capitalize Communist, it removes ambiguity. TFD (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly citation for that? Is 'Communist state' appled, where 'communist state' is not, as referring to the GDR? TomHennell (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need a source to choose whether to use a capital C. Rjensen's sources include use of both capitlized and non-capitalized Cs. Here though are two sources on usage: Liberalism and the Postcolony, p. 185, n. 10;[3] The Magna Carta Manifesto, p. 304;[4] TFD (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks TFD; I think I have your point at last. Slow of me. Summarised perhaps as 'communist state' to refer to the final form of state development envisaged in Marxist-Leninist theory; while (Big 'C') 'Communist state' refers to the actuality of state institutions as transformed under Communist Party rule. Is that right? That might work (and is supported in the literature). But I do not find it anywhere else in Wikipedia - where Big 'C' Communist and Small 'c' communist appear interchangeably. Other articles on the actuality of former Soviet Bloc countries refer to them either as 'socialist republic' (or socialist state) - which were their preferred self-descriptions; or as a 'state under communist rule'. The latter formula, to me, picks up your 'Communist' point, and also avoids the ambiguity. What do you think? TomHennell (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The term communist state in English is not the same as "having achieved communism" as seen in-universe from the communist perspective. A communist state, as widely defined by RS in English, is simply "a state that is usually administered and governed by a single party representing the proletariat, guided by Marxist–Leninist philosophy, with the aim of achieving communism", as our article communist state puts it. The word socialism is much broader and there are large western non-communist parties such as the French socialist party which call themselves socialist. The word is also used interchangeably with social democracy in English. --Tataral (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If "communist state" is no more than a imprecise and ambiguous way of saying "state under communist rule"; then the logical conclusion is that the article should avoid it. The same consideration, as I understand it, is the justification for TFD's proposal to capitalise 'Communist'. If 'communist state' Had acceptable in sound scholarship, capitalisation would not have been necessary. But the counterpart Wikipedia articles for other communist regimes in Eastern Europe do not use the form 'communist state'; and there is a virtue in consistency of precision. Clearly, much current scholarship does apply the formula 'socialist state' to the GDR, where others may make do with the formula 'communist state'; and others say 'under communist rule'. I would suggest that a more precise and unambiguous formula is to be preferred; and that is how editors of the counterpart articles appear to have proceeded. You are right however, to emphasise that 'socialist' has a wider context than simply as a term of art for Soviet Bloc regimes. But this gets back to a key feature of East Germany in particular. In Hester Vaizey's study she characterises the GDR as simultaneously both a STASI-state and a social protection-state; where access to 'social protection' - jobs, housing, healthcare, recreational opportunities - corresponded much more to a 'socialist' agenda (as the French socialist party would recognise it), than to a 'communist' one. Hence the response of Oskar Lafontaine and many other Social Democrats, that the GDR minus STASI could well develop as a parallel social democratic state. This did not happen, mainly because the constituency for such a state then had far less traction within the GDR population. But that does not mean that, in other circumstances, it might not have been the outcome. TomHennell (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not really imprecise or ambiguous. It's unambiguously defined in English as states like East Germany and other Warsaw Pact countries, and we have an article titled communist state specifically on that. The key feature of the GDR was its totalitarian character/dictatorship. The word socialism on the other hand often refers to entirely democratic western ideologies (parties etc.) and is so broad that it's of no use here, except when discussing the GDR's self-perception. --Tataral (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that the term 'communist state' is not defined as "states like East Germany and other Warsaw Pact countries"; as both in popular usage and in that Wikipedia article, it includes radically different states, and states that were never part of the Warsaw Pact. A key observation of the fall of communist rule in 1989, is that the underlying state structures that emerged from under communist political control had very little in common with one another. As witness the differing experiences of Yugoslavia, Belarus, Czechoslovakia and Poland. In this respect the 'state' as it emerged in East Germany before 1989 had strong similarities with the state in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; while being wholly different from the state in Yugoslavia or Belarus. On balance, I suggest that the full range of perspectives (and the supporting citations) would be accommodated by a formula such as "was a state under communist rule in Central Europe, during the Cold War period; which described itself as a socialist "workers' and peasants' state." Certainly the current list of 'communist states' in the Wikipedia article - China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea - have nothing in common with the GDR; so applying the label looks wholly inappropriate TomHennell (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and I don't understand the claim that those other states "have nothing in common with the GDR." They are/were all states governed non-democratically by communist parties with communism as the overarching goal of the state, hence communist states, so they certainly have that in common. No state is identical to another state, and that is certainly not a requirement for describing states governed by communist parties as communist states. --Tataral (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, you'll notice that that list is only of current communist states. If you look a little further up the page you will see a map that clearly indicates East Germany as a former communist country. East Germany, the Warsaw Pact countries, the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. are all "like" each other in the sense that they all fulfill(ed) the definition given in the intro to that article. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] Debra J. Allen (2003). The Oder-Neisse Line: The United States, Poland, and Germany in the Cold War. Greenwood. pp. 101–48.

[2] Arthur Gunlicks (2003). The Lander and German Federalism. Manchester University Press. pp. 36–39.

[1]

[2]