Talk:East Germany/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

National anthem

There is apparently a choice of music file for the DDR's national anthem:

• [[File:Auferstanden aus Ruinen - Nationale Volksarmee.wav]] - this file was uploaded on 27 December 2017, it has no copyright markings and was cribbed from Youtube. The file does not provide users with words if the user presses "CC" because no text tracks are available. File:Auferstanden aus Ruinen - Nationale Volksarmee.wav
• [[File:Auferstanden aus Ruinen.oga]] - this file has proper copyright markings. If the user presses the "CC" box whilst playing the file it shows shows the words as the music is played. The choices are German, English or Portuguese. File:Auferstanden aus Ruinen.oga

The oga file is more useful-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The file the IP editor keeps linking to was deleted on Commons as a copyright violation at 05:13, 29 December 2017. See the deletion log.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Partially recognized, 1949 to 1972?

East Germany partially recognized from 1949 to 1972? This is news to me. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It was recognized by other members of the Warsaw Pact and some other governments. TFD (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Only the FRG, under the Hallstein Doctrine, didn't recognize the GDR until 1972. The country doesn't appear in the List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies nor in the List of states with limited recognition. The non-recognition ended with the 1971 Four Power Agreement on Berlin and the Basic Treaty, 1972. FRG Chancellor Willy Brandt associated his name with that new Ostpolitik. Wakari07 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

But I learn that according to itself, the United States did not recognize the GDR until 1974. I have no idea why. (State Dept.) Wakari07 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Is this all a part of the Hallstein Doctrine which appears to have been intended to limited recognition of the GDR outside of the Soviet Union rather than just limit the FRG's recognition of the GDR. The above linked article seems to say it was. E.g.

The western allies, in various agreements, including the General Treaty of 1955, had agreed to recognize only the Federal Republic of Germany. The western occupying powers (France, Britain, and the USA) accepted the continued existence of the pre-existing German State; and the New York Declaration of 18 September 1950 stated that they "regard[ed] the government of the Federal Republic of Germany as the only German government freely and legitimately constituted and therefore entitled to speak for the German nation in international affairs".[13] An unpublished "interpretative minute" produced at the same time clarifies that the formula did not constitute recognition of the Government of the Federal Republic as the de jure government of all Germany".[13]

and

Whenever the German Democratic Republic opened some form of representation in another country, they attempted to persuade that country to open a similar representation in the German Democratic Republic. Although they were willing to provide financial inducements for this purpose, their success was limited.[4]:39 For the first stage in developing diplomatic relations, the German Democratic Republic often used the assistance of the local communist party in the country, and East German journalists were also pressed into service.[4]:32–33 The next stage was to establish a trade agreement . This was not especially problematic, because the Federal Republic of Germany did not object to trade relations, providing it did not involve explicit diplomatic recognition.

and

"trade missions" and using diplomatic titles for their officers. This met with resistance on the part of the Federal Republic of Germany.[4]:36–37 The final stage that the German Democratic Republic aimed for was to establish a consulate general. This usually involved issuing an exequatur, a document that guarantees the consul's rights and privileges. This was regarded by the Federal Republic of Germany as equivalent to official diplomatic recognition and could be expected to be met with sanctions of some form. Countries such as Egypt attempted to avoid upsetting either side by issuing an exequatur but adding a note that it did not imply recognition of the German Democratic Republic. Right up to 1969, however, the German Democratic Republic was not able to achieve full diplomatic representation – with two possible exceptions:

and

The doctrine seemed to succeed for a long time in isolating the GDR, at least from important Western or Third World states. But it also limited the federal government's politics, and in the 1960s it became more and more difficult to maintain. In several cases, the doctrine was in fact not applied. When, in 1957, the GDR opened an office in Cairo to establish contact with the entire Arab world, the Federal Republic did not withdraw its ambassador from Egypt. Moreover, when in 1965 the Federal Republic established diplomatic relations with Israel, many Arab states ceased theirs with the Federal Republic but did not recognise the GDR. This eventually happened after 1967, because the GDR had supported the Arab states in the Six-Day War. The doctrine was also not applied to Cambodia in 1969, although it had recognised the GDR. The Federal Republic established diplomatic relations with Romania in 1967 and reestablished those with Yugoslavia in 1968. The government's argument was that the communist states had been in fact forced to recognise the GDR and should not be punished for that.

and

The doctrine was applied twice, to Yugoslavia in 1957, and to Cuba in 1963. Both had first recognized the GDR.

etc.

The doctrine wasn't always successful, but it seems to have severely curtailed recognition of the GDR. The US recognition in 1974 came I presume as a result of Ostpolitik which lead to the Four Power Agreement on Berlin and the Basic Treaty, 1972. A little slow, but this shouldn't be that surprising given US politics.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For the purpose of the article though, the lag in recognition of East Germany by 'Western' countries is not relevant; as from 1974 onwards there was no question that the GDR was universally recognised both in diplomatic practice and in international law as a fully independent sovereign state. In that, it parallels the post-war Republic of Austria - which the Western Powers originally rejected as a Soviet puppet state, but (rather more rapidly than was the case for the GDR) eventually recognised. It is true that, following the Basic Treaty of 1972, the Federal Republic tried to maintain both that it recognised the GDR 'in international law as an independent sovereign state' while still refusing to recognise it as 'a sovereign state in international law'; but no other country followed them in this (and indeed most German legal scholars considered the distinction to be totally meaningless). And of course, the Reunication treaty of 1990 was entirely dependent for its legality on the prior recognition of the GDR by the Federal Republic as a de iure German state. TomHennell (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The mention of the lag is relevant to the drag in this story. Wakari07 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I expect this lack of recognition is why West Germany absorbed East Germany rather than forming a merger between two states. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that the Reunification Treaty was exactly that; a merger between two formerly independent states. As it happened, that merger was on the basis of East Germany chosing to declare its accession to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic - subject to fundamental changes being made to that Basic Law before that accession could come into effect. But the process was the sovereign choice of East Germany alone, taking the form of an action of the East German Volkskammer as the legislature of a sovereign state according to the mechanisms of its own constitution. If West Germany had not recognised East Germany as a sovereign state, then the Federal Republic would not have been legally bound by the Volkskammer's legislative actions. All of this subsequently became the occasion of repeated attempts to have key terms of the Reunification Treaty ruled unconstitutional; attempts which the Federal Constitutional Court rejected, exactly on the basis that East Germany had remained an independent sovereign state right up to the moment of Reunification. Hence post-reunification litigation in respect of actions within East Germany before 3 October 1990 was bound by East German, not West German, laws. TomHennell (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

TomHennell, it's a coincidence then that the 2-3 December 1989 Malta Summit talking points concerning the sovereignty of East Berlin are or are not in accordance with the 1 December 1989 version of the Constitution of East Germany, disculping the SED leadership's monopoly of power for the collapse of the GDR? Wakari07 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

All of Berlin continued until 1990 to be recognized as being administered by the Soviet Union, the U.S., UK and France, and not part of either German state. Today most of the world does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank of Jerusalem, it does not mean it does not recognize Israel. TFD (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: please correct to West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Arab/East part of Al Quds/Jerusalem. Wakari07 (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Wakari07, you will need to spell out your argument in more detail; as so far you point eludes me. The process of German reunification involved an elaborately staged choreography of concurrent actions along (at least) five tracks; the Four plus Two treaty negotiations on ending WWII, the winding-up of the Allied Control Council, the final treaty determination of Germany's eastern boundaries, the Reunification treaty itself, and the associated constitutional arrangements for East Germany to be extinguised and the reconstituted East German States to be admitted into the Federal Republic. Which track was at any one time represented the actual process of reunification was always kept undefined - deliberately so. But all tracks required the active contribution of East Germany state; hence without the GDR being fully recognised by all parties as a sovereign state in international law, none of the tracks could have proceeded. Which was how the Federal Constitutional Court subsequently justified that recognition. All organs of the German state - and within that of the Federal Republic - were bound by an overriding duty to work for reunification. That duty extended to the German nation as a whole; since in German constitutional theory, the nation is an organ of the state. Hence the former principles of non-recognition (and then limited recognition) became obsolete - indeed unconstitutional - once there was a prospect of full unification by means of a treaty between the FRG and the GDR as separate sovereign states. TomHennell (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is that the SED is not legally responsible for events after 1 December 1989, nor is Gorbatchov morally to blame for events after 2-3 December 1989. If it indeed proves an "elaborate choreography" staged before the 18 March 1990 democratic justificative elections... then by who? As a kid, we were supposed to believe that people power did it. Cui bono? Wakari07 (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair points Wakari07, but not perhaps that relevant to the issue in hand, at least as I understood it; which was whether East Germany was not fully recognised as a sovereign state before unification. My view being that it was. Certainly neither the SED, nor Gorbachev, were in a position to direct the way things turned out during 1990. The 'elaborate choreography' became necessary once Kohl's orignal ten-point plan for German unification rang alarm bells with the rest of Europe; in that it appeared to suggest that Kohl envisaged reunification happening first, without a formal ending of WWII. But as things turned out 'people power' was a lot more decisive than most commentators in 1989 assumed it would be. Mostly it was assumed that the GDR would democratise and adopt a free-market economy (and participate in the ending of WWII) as continuing sovereign state; only moving to reunification some years later (probably on the basis of a completely new all-German constitution. But the 1990 elections gave a clear mandate for rapid unification; accelerated by the economic union at a rate of 1 to 1 - which devastated East German industry, but was clearly strongly popular with the East German population. Of course most parties contesting the East German elections were strongly influenced by West German parties (who throughout prioritised perceived party interests); so that the CDU allies were constrained to promote joining the FRG as it stood; where the SPD allies were constrained to seek a new constitutional settlement. But in the end, it was the East German vote that was decisive. TomHennell (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Kohl was indeed a top proxy, a focal point for the plan. And the origins and workings of his 10-point plan remain unfairly not well documented on Wikipedia. Wakari07 (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But back on topic. Wakari07 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact membership

Why mention East Germany's Warsaw Pact membership in the infobox, when we don't have it mentioned in the infoboxes of other former Warsaw Pact members? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe nobody thought about it before. Wakari07 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because the other countries left the Warsaw Pact but East Germany stopped existing? Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg stopped existing in 1356 or 1423, yet its overlord the Holy Roman Empire, although it existed until 1806, is not mentioned in the infobox. I think I'd rather add this kind of info. That's for me the point of WP:BOLD. Wakari07 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Done Wakari07 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't mention NATO membership in info-boxes either. NATO was the Western collective security pact, and still exists. TFD (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Eastern Bloc" and "Communism" portals and numerous links to Cold War already stand out clearly in the article. However, why not note the effective delegated sovereignty obtained by the Soviet Union-driven Warsaw Pact membership? I think I'm changing my opinion to yes, include Warsaw Pact membership in all countries' infoboxes. It's useful for oversight. Wakari07 (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Also useful to mention would be the economic complement of the military Warsaw Pact, the COMECON membership. Wakari07 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC) (1950-1990) Wakari07 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, in the Hungarian People's Republic, Polish People's Republic and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic articles, have "Member of the Warsaw Pact (yyyy-yyyy)" in the infobox. Hungary additionally sports the sourced status "Satellite state of the Soviet Union". Wakari07 (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Strong claims require strong WP:RS. I am tempted to remove this edit, but as I wish to remain neutral on all things German politics, I'll leave it to someone else to delete or source. That said, I might well protect the article yet again, and probably for a lot longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Auferstanden aus Ruinen.oga

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox country vs infobox former country?

Why does the article use Infobox country instead of Infobox former country? Since East Germany was dissolved during reunification shouldn't it use the latter? MSG17 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

When I click on Infobox former country I land on a redirect to Infobox country. I confess that anything wrapped in {{}} is, to me, deeply mysterious. Nevertheless, I think I may have stumbled on a clue to an answer to your question. Success Charles01 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That explains it, thank you. MSG17 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian translation of the country's name

A certain IP who made some changes recently thinks that the Russian translation of the country's name should be included in the infobox and the first sentence of this article. As far as I'm concerned this applies only to languages that are either official or native to the country in question. Russian was the first foreign language East Germans had to learn in school, yes, and the country was highly influenced by the USSR, but this does give the Russian language neither official nor native status. That's why I strictly oppose the inclusion of the Russian translation of the country's name into the header and the first sentence of this article. The IP seems unfortunately to be of different opinion. I decided to reach out to this talk in order to try to prevent an edit war and to possibly find supporters of my point of view. Let's discuss this matter thoroughly. Nihonsuku (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I noticed, however, that the People's Republic of Bulgaria article is the only other Eastern Bloc member to have their name in Russian. Is there one editor trying to bring this about for all Eastern Bloc member states? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just double-checked. It is just one IP trying to do this for multiple Eastern Bloc pages. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've erased the Russian name of the People's Republic of Bulgaria for the same reason I erased the Russian name of the GDR here. Nihonsuku (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Housing

Why the article does not mention that the state provided almost free housing for everybody, and the young couples could be allotted land and building material fo free if they wanted to build theri own house?Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Appartments were heavily subsidized, but not "almost free", you had to pay rent nonetheless, although it was cheap. The second claim may be true for the time previous to land reform, when former owners of the land fled into the west, but certainly not anymore after creating LPG's (landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft/agricultural production co-operative). -178.1.118.222 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not the same

DDR =/= DDR : East Germany is not identical with the former DDR. --105.4.0.174 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

there is a clarification note before the lede para; pointing out that, for this article, 'East Germany' is used as the normal term in English for the German state that existed from 1949 to 1990 with the official name of German Democratic Republic. As indeed to this day, 'West..' and 'Ost..' are the standard prefixes in use to denote characteristics of the two former separate German sovereign states and their peoples. 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you think "East Germany" is then. Are you perhaps confusing it with the phrase "eastern Germany"? Those are two different things in English. "East Germany" is this specific former country. "Eastern Germany" is the eastern portion of Germany. The latter will refer to various different regions depending on the extent of Germany at the time under discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• "East Germany" - the words are both proper nouns, being the name of a country. Both words are capitalised.
• "eastern Germany" - the first word is a common noun, not a proper noun, so it is not capitalised unless it is at the start of a sentence.

The term was originally used during the Cold War when the Federal Republic of Germany claimed the territory as well as half of Poland and part of the USSR. But following Ostpolitik, the FRG gave up its claims, the GDR was internationally recognized and reliable sources began referring to it by its actual name, although the term East Germany continued to be used. Note for example its entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica.[1] The title Esat Germany has a cold war feel to me, but maybe I'm drinking too much fluoridated water. TFD (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering how it only existed during the Cold War, I'm not sure how a "Cold War feel" is a problem.--Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I should have said the height of the Cold War, i.e., the period of mass hysteria before detente. Watch Dr. Strangelove, the Russians are Coming, Fail-Safe or One, Two Three for a sense of it. TFD (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was before my time, but as a kid in the '80s and '90s the only thing I ever heard this place called was "East Germany". In geography class, on the news, in movies. Everywhere. --Khajidha (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Era in the infobox

An editor keeps changing the era in the infobox from Cold War to 20th Century in this article and some others.[2][3][4] Whilst it is true that East Germany existed in the 20th Century, I think that Cold War is more useful because it is more specific and relevant to the topic of this communist state. Toddy1 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree The Cold War is more defining.--PRL Dreams (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Partition

The partition part fails to mention the role of West Germany and America in the partition of Germany. The partition started with the American-supported currency reform in the western occupied zones. And was then completed by the formation of the Federal Republic in May 1949. A free election covering all occupied zones was rejected by Adenauer, because he feared to lose in the east. He'd rather "rule half of Germany completely than all of Germany half".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.226.42 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

GDR or DDR?

The abbreviations used for East Germany in German were SBZ and DDR, and in English sometimes GDR and sometimes DDR - the main time I saw GDR used in English was on medals leagues for the Olympic Games.

The article clearly needs to mention both abbreviations in the lede, which it does. But elsewhere it would be best to use one or the other. Currently, there are 94 mentions of GDR and 31 mentions of DDR. I would prefer either using East German/East Germany or DDR.

A recent edit changed one instance of GDR to DDR.[5] @Sirlanz: if you are going to change from one to the other, please could you do it for the whole article so it is consistent.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Copying something I previously posted from the archives (Archive 9, to be exact):

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) 8:58 am, 9 May 2017, Tuesday (11 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−4)

--Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain clearly. The current article uses both GDR and DDR. I would prefer that it used one or the other.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I simply forgot to state that I felt that the standardization should be to GDR. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The page itself should be called the German Democratic Republic (seeing as this is an English language Wikipedia). I don't understand why an educational website would choose to use titles like "South Korea" or "East Germany" and then state, 'officially'. Shouldn't it be the other way around generally speaking, when referring to nation-states? "The German Democratic Republic, colloquially East Germany." etc. Why isn't it? --Alaks Hovel 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but if you look at the talk page archives: many discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would we do that for this country, but not for the Hellenic Republic, the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, the French Republic, etc. It makes no sense to title articles about countries with something that is basically never used. --Khajidha (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic

The title should be changed to German Democratic Republic, with the colloquial name East Germany redirecting here. Same as with America and United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.226.42 (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would favour the article title being Deutsche Demokratische Republik. But the Wikipedia Policy WP:Commonname says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". So we call the article East Germany. Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Like South Korean or North Korea, East Germany is the most commonly used name.--PRL Dreams (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "officially the"

I find the current state of the introduction of this very unsatisfactory. It reads:

East Germany, officially the German Democratic Republic ...

The wording is the same used for every country, including modern-day Germany, Mexico, and Russia. The issue with all these three examples (and the 190+ others not mentioned here) is that practically every country has a constitutional name ("French Republic") and an official short name ("France"), using which it is presented in less formal contexts, such as representation in the United Nations.

The above-mentioned lead format has been used for all country articles that have both a constitutional name and an official shortname for years. However, "officially" in this context is misleading as both names are official, while only one is constitutional. But alas, this is the established format and any attempt to change this would likely be unsuccessful.

That said, East Germany (other examples including North and South Korea) should not carry the same format, as its usage is misleading. In all cases, the designation is/was unofficial and rejected by the individual countries due to competing territorial claims.

Ideally, of course, there should be a project-wide solution that streamlines the name usage, differentiating official from otherwise common but unofficial names. However, as long as this is not the case, a localised solution should work. My minor edit proposed to following wording:

The German Democratic Republic, commonly known by the unofficial designation East Germany, ...

This makes clear the points I stated above and resolves any ambiguity. The article title (which, independently and outside the introductory sentence, is fine, per WP:COMMONNAME) does not need to be the first word inside the article. Despite this and the above, the proposed wording has been rejected, restoring ambiguity. Thus, I would like to know which alternative we could provide in order to fix this. Lordtobi (✉) 14:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The ambiguity arises solely from within your own mind. You are interpreting the short name in those other articles as the official short name. It isn't. It is simply the commonly used name. We aren't using "Mexico" (for example) because it is the official short name, but because it is the commonly used name. Once you realize that, you will see that there is no problem to resolve. East Germany and Mexico use the same format because they are presenting the same information: the common name and the formal name. --Khajidha (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That would suggest that information on countries' short names is universally missing, which I doubt is the intent. The United States article addresses this using the "commonly known as" format; yes, other stuff exists, but I feel like this makes the matter much clearer and should also be used here. If "Mexico, officially the United Mexican States ..." is supposed to suggest that "Mexico" is not official and just a common name, even though the name is indeed official, something is clearly wrong. Lordtobi (✉) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No. "Mexico, officially the United Mexican States..." says that 1) the country is COMMONLY called "Mexico" and 2) it is FORMALLY and OFFICIALLY called "United Mexican States". The "officialness" of the short form "Mexico" is neither affirmed nor denied, it is not considered at all. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"East Germany" was not official in GDR. OK. So? Official or not, "East Germany" referred or refers to the GDR without any ambiguity. Same for the Koreas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eulenbär (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Respected sources in the Western Europe and North American began calling the country the German Democratic Republic after it was recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany and admitted to the UN. The parallel with the Koreas is that the FRG renounced its claim of sovereignty over the GDR, while both North and South Korea claim sovereignty over the entire country. Similarly, we now refer to Southern Ireland by its official name of Ireland after the UK recognized its independence. The current name harks back to the height of Cold War before Ostpolitik. TFD (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed. Because every source I encountered at the time (newspapers, television, movies, maps, globes, school books, etc) used East and West Germany all the way until reunification. --Khajidha (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of "Dr." in front of the initial mention of Höppner

Another editor has removed the "Dr." in front of Dr. Höppner's names in the Sport section. From Subsequent use: "After an initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only... this includes academic or professional prefixes like "Dr."". In other words, the initial mention of a subject should include "Dr.", and then surname only. As my mention of Höppner in East_Germany#Sport was his initial mention, I now feel re-adding the "Dr." is solidly based in policy. I thank you. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The mentioning or titles like "Dr." is in clear contradiction to MOS:DOC: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title". Hence, no title is needed, it is sufficient to have his PhD mentioned in the person's article. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

These are links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, but GDR is a country. I think Dr. Höppner informs the reader that Höppner as a medical professional.--PRL Dreams (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, he could be a doctor of anything. If you want to say he was a medical professional or sports doctor, just say so. TFD (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sports doctor is great.--PRL Dreams (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Auferstanden aus Ruinen (Instrumental).oga

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

POV-Editing going on in Legacy section

There has been quite a bit of POV editing going on in the Legacy section and to some extent also in the Ostalgie section, by contributors who seem to be indulging in a bit of Ostalgie themselves! Most recently, an overlong quote from Christa Luft, the Minister of Economics in the final SED government, was added by Slagar123 to the Legacy section. This comes on top of the overlong quote from Margot Honecker, of all people, that introduces the Legacy section, taken from an interview with "Workers World". A source that has also been used by Steve1solution to reinsert "gender equality" into the Ostalgie section, after my previous undo here – where I pointed out that objectively the GDR didn't have anything close to gender equality. And that a subjective feeling that this was the case needs a reference. But surely not from Margot Honecker!

So now Honecker and Luft dominate the Legacy section, while a far shorter paragraph sourced to historian Jürgen Kocka, is the token "balance" in-between them. This does not meet WP-standards for NPOV and for both balanced and good sourcing. Luft, and even more so Honecker, are engaging in self-serving revisionism that glosses over, or downplays as "necessary", the legacy of a dictatorial system that was also responsible for a multitude of human rights abuses, political imprisonments, a shooting order targeting anyone trying to escape the country, and the Stasi – Luft was a Stasi informant herself. Their POV cannot be allowed to define this section, as it currently does. Instead, more objective sources (writers, historians) should be added, and Hoenecker/Luft reduced, if kept at all. --Sprachraum (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the Legacy section of this article is biased with the opinion of ex-government officials....I suggest deletion of the section or a total unbiased re-write. Ultimately the "legacy" of east Germany is that it's defunct and no longer in existence. RomanGrandpa (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I was shocked when I saw the Honecker and Luft quotes so I removed them based on the consensus in here and merged the "Ostalgie" part with the Legacy section. I agree we should should stick to quotes from historians like Kocka rather than East German officials. Midwood123 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Midwood123. --Sprachraum (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Loaded language

The GDR identity section tries to push a view that the GDR was comprised of cultural barbarians with lines like the "Berliner Stadtschloß was razed". Razed? This is a word chosen to give a particular impression. The fact is the Berliner Stadtschloß was bombed and heavily damaged by allied bombing during WW2 and it was demolished because there were no resources for restoring it at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.113.142 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The East German leaders and some citizens supported a system that shot and imprisoned achievers and inventors that tried to leave the country to live an enterprising life, that's the definition of cultural barbarianism.....the wording stays as is... RomanGrandpa (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment of the GDR system as a whole, RomanGrandpa, I would not agree that this is the motivation behind tearing down the Stadtschloss – after all, plenty of other buildings dating back to the monarchy era were saved and restored in the GDR. I'm relatively impassioned about the term "razed", but I would agree that the term "demolished" used by the IP, is a more neutral, encyclopaedic term. No harm in using that instead, in my opinion. --Sprachraum (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight section

I'd just like to formally say that the removed section that the IP keeps putting back in is undue weight in the sense of the topic, regardless of whether the sources are even fair or not. The topic is very narrow if it could even be studied with accurate and complete enough data Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It is significant how women's rights and female sexuality were treated in the GDR. Instead of removing the information, you might consider how to rephrase it. TFD (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Auferstanden aus Ruinen (Instrumental).oga

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Asking for consensus

I do not necessarily think I require consensus when I've got all the sources, but sure, why not. I should explain what I did. I defined what Soviet satellite means by the means of multiple sources which contrast the actual Soviet satellites with the one Warsaw Pact state which wasn't a Soviet satellite: Romania. I focused on crucial things: the presence of Soviet troops on territory, integration with the Soviet-led Pact structrues, military dependence on the Soviet Union, obligation to militarily defend the Soviet Union and cooperation with the Soviet Union in international situations. And also an explicit source which states the status of Romania ("independent") and the other non-Soviet Warsaw Pact ("European colonies"). I could have greatly expanded, but the anchor was fat enough as it was. I also consider redundant to add the "Member of the Warsaw Pact" tag for two reasons: you don't see it on NATO members, and - since the tag is not present on the infobox of the Soviet Union itself - it comes across to me as a rather slimy way to imply that members were Soviet satellites, even when they were demonstrably not (Romania, Albania till 1968). So, does anyone object to my edit? And if so, why? Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Transylvania1916 I'll weigh in since I saw your edit(s, I noticed you did the same across the Warsaw Pact) and didn't revert it then, but I definitely thought about it. While this information is well organized and sourced, it feels oddly focused on Romania, and very focused on pushing the POV that Romania was substantially more independent from the USSR than the rest of the Pact. This information could be good at Warsaw Pact or Socialist Republic of Romania, but inserting it into every member states article feels like WP:UNDUE WP:POVPUSHING. I don't think this is done in bad faith, just that this is the wrong place for a detailed analysis of this. I actually agree that the Pact membership under Status should go, but the note you added shouldn't be there either. Also pinging Nillurcheier since they reverted you. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Transylvania1916's material about the minutiae of the Warsaw Pact are UNDUE in this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I went to the others and deleted all the extra info, leaving only the first reference. Because we can't go on assumptions forever, we've got to have a source if we are to specify "satellite state" status. Also - "the POV that Romania was substantially more independent from the USSR than the rest of the Pact" - I take issue with that. It's not a POV, it's fact, it's reality. Like, this isn't up for debate. Transylvania1916 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As a fully recognized UN member state, the clearly existing dependance on the SU should be mentioned but not be overstressed. Overwise it would lead in a similar discussion on West Germany's connection with the NATO and USA, a situation I'd like to avoid. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the 'status' section at all (especially at the top of the infobox). This seems to be a strange catch-all category to house information that can be better explained later in the article and gives WP:UNDUE. I don't see 'status' in other state's WP articles and importantly is missing from W.Germany's article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and took out the status section. Not really all that useful and we should be trying to parallel West Germany as much as we can IMO. BSMRD (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Warsaw Pact membership is important, but I don't think we need to get into which Warsaw Pact country was a satellite and when. Romania was also a satellite state in the beginning before Ceaușescu's more independent streak.Eulenbär (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Richer than West Germany?

According to the numbers given here, the GDR was considerably richer than West Germany in PPP terms in 1990. The GDR had a GDP of $529bn in 1989 and a population of 16.1m. This works out as a GDP per capita at PPP of $32,600 (despite the article saying $42,000). By contrast West Germany had a GDP of $1tn in 1990 and a population of 63.25m, which gives a GDP per capita at PPP of $15,800. Therefore in PPP terms the GDR was more than twice as rich as West Germany. Can this really be the case? LastDodo (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

East German currency was worthless in the real world and had no "international" value, so there was no great way to measure the East Germany economy nor the performance of it's currency, communist economist just made numbers up out of thin air RomanGrandpa (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The 1990 CIA Factbook shows a GNP of $9.679, compared with a GDP of %15,300 for West Germany.[6] But determining a GNP or GDP for non-market economies is always problematic.

The Ostmark was not worthless. The purchasing power for necessities was higher than the Deutschmark, but luxury goods usually could only be bought with Deutschmarks, which were traded at 5:1 to 10:1. Furthermore, the quality of goods in East Germany was usually lower, unless imported.

TFD (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What westerner would want to be paid in Ostmark's? .....Even the Soviet Union had to trade war ships to buy Pepsi........no company would accept the Ruble, because it had no value outside the Soviet Union. RomanGrandpa (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

CIA Factbook is a standard source for such info so I would suggest that data replace the existing data which comes from the 'World Inequality Database'. LastDodo (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Westerners visiting East Germany would buy Ostmark either through official sources or the black market which they would then use to buy goods and services there. So it wasn't actually worthless in the sense that Confederate money was after the war, just that the market value was far less than the official exchange rate and the currency was not trade in FX markets.

Since the actual method of calculating the value of the Ostmark and the GNP of a non-market economy is disputed, I would like to see a source that explains how it derives its figures.

TFD (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That's reasonable but since the World Inequality Database doesn't offer any such explanation either, I would still suggest replacing that number with the CIA one for now. LastDodo (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

All these values are heavily dependent on estimates and assumptions which don't stand up too well to scrutiny, but they continue to be important because there are too many occasions when the need to discuss their implications cannot be circumvented. Something is better than nothing. For many purposes "nominal GDP" is more appropriate than "PPP GDP". Your discussion would be more complete if someone were to add and populate the following fields to the infobox:

"| GDP_nominal = $00,000 billion | GDP_nominal_rank = xxst | GDP_nominal_year = 1989 | GDP_nominal_per_capita = $000| GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = xxst"

That has already been done for most countries. For the infoboxes on East Germany and West Germany in wiki-en those fields are missing, presumably because the data needed to populate them are not so accessible. But if you do have relatively easy access to an appropriate source, how about it? Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't I'm afraid. When I google it it comes up with the Wikisource page https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook_(1990)/German_Democratic_Republic and a site called 'theodora.com' that I'm not familiar with. LastDodo (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Per capital income and HDI looks bogus

Communist East Germany with a per capital income of 42,000$ by 1989 slightly smaller than it is today for all Germany???😂😂😂😂 Nlivataye (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is what I've been thinking. Absolutely no chance the GDP PC and especially HDI were even nearly that high. 0.953 would make it nearly the most developed country on Earth if it were today. The source it cites has loads of inflated HDI numbers... Oligarchs0 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is East Germany a country?

I thought it was a country, not just a state? Can you explain here? Thanks. Free Bloc (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, it is a former country, from 1949 until unification with West Germany in 1990. Since then it is just the in-official name for a region, similar to Southern Germany.

But you are probably asking about this revert of an edit of yours. To be honest, both the term "country" and "state" are in my opinion correct (and interchangeable) in this case. "State" can also be used in the sense of Sovereign state, instead of in the sense of Constituent state (like the 16 federal states that make up Germany, or the 50 states that make up the United States). The use of state = country corresponds to the German word "Staat", which also has several meanings depending on context.

So I would not have been so fast to revert you, and perhaps User:Bumbubookworm can enlighten us, why he felt it necessary. One argument for the revert could be, that West Germany never accepted East Germany as a sovereign state; instead considering it to be an illegally constituted puppet state controlled by the Soviet Union. The West German Grundgesetz always contained Reunification as a central aim, therefore West Germany insisted that neither itself, nor East Germany, were a separate country – just temporarily separated parts of one single country.

One snag with this argument though: It didn't reflect the actual realities on the ground. For several decades the two were for all practical purposes separate countries. It is a similar situation to South Korea and North Korea, or to mainland China and Taiwan. As much as the People's Republic of China insists that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China and can never be a sovereign state – for many decades now, that is pretty much what Taiwan has been. Seeing that all these four linked articles employ the word "country" in the introduction, I think a good case can be made for both "country" and "state" being fine in connection with East Germany too. All the best from --Sprachraum (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The states of the U.S. are called states because they are sovereign states that united into a federation by delegating part of their sovereignty to a central government. Before that they were called provinces or colonies. In German, German states are refer to as Länder which means countries. The German word for state is Staat. Other countries have appeared to have copied the U.S. term for its constituent territories, even when they were never states in the historical sense.

I prefer referring to the DDR and BRD as states, because it could be seen as one country divided into two states. TFD (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

yah it be a country back in the olden times with the whipper snapper gobble fobblers yk what im sayin Bc420bc (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thank both you very much, goodbye. Free Bloc (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic was indeed a country. 2402:800:9B0E:CDC4:DC63:C430:709B:A316 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Auferstanden aus Ruinen.wav

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• East Germany.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

About Source 7

Jürgen Kocka went to school in West Germany in the Free University of Berlin which was heavily influenced by USA propaganda. I'm not sure it's appropriate here to list him as a source when claiming that the GDR was a totalitarian state. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

This is a grammatical issue and a minor edit. In the top section of the article in the second to last sentence in the first paragraph it says Unlike West Germany, SED did not see its state as the successor one of the German Reich” and it is grammatically incorrect to have one after the word successor. If you could fix this, it would be helpful to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Bornonthisday (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)