Talk:History of Germany/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sidebar

This is just a suggestion... I'm not going to change it, I only want to see what people think. On the side bar listing each category of German history, shouldn't "A new era" and "The darkest hours" be changed to something a less emotive. Given that this site is made to emulate an encyclopedia, shouldn't it be a little less dramatic? Jclingerman

I agree, besides being POV by definition the terms don't really fit, "A new era" for the republic of Weimar is certainly misleading. Nevfennas 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Germany

I am having a debate with User:Aborvegyro regarding his desire to add information about "Territorial losses from the Middle Ages to modern times" to Territorial changes of Germany.

My stance is that Territorial changes of Germany is about changes to the territorial borders of Germany after the formation of the German Empire in 1871. User:Aborvegyro disagrees.

I note that the lead to this article says

"The History of Germany begins with the birth of the nation from Ancient Roman times to the 8th century[citation needed], and then continues[citation needed] into the Holy Roman Empire dating from the 9th century until 1806.

This would suggest a stance closer to User:Aborvegyro than mine.

I also note that the lead continues on saying

At its largest extent, the territory of this empire included what today is Germany, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, western Poland, the Low Countries, eastern France, Switzerland and most of northern Italy. After the mid 16th century, when it had lost many former territories, it was known as the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

This suggests the concept of a German empire in medieval times.

Please refer to the discussion on Talk:Territorial changes of Germany and express your opinion there.

Thank you.

--Richard 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the citations from the first paragraph of this article, the are not needed. That infermation being stated is general public opinion, and just common sense. Any problems with the removal of the citations please let me know.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Territorial losses of modern Germany 1919-1945 (Animation).

This is a pretty animation, if you like blue. But I don't see that it adds much, and it implies that East Prussia was lost before Eastern Silesia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Reich

Why was Nazi Germany called the Third Reich? Hitler was not emperor of Germany and there was no Imperial court. A dictator, and an emperor are two completly diffrent things. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The German expression "Reich" is not necessarily equivalent to the English expressions "empire" (German: Kaiserreich) or "kingdom" (German: Königreich). Historically, the term was of course associated with some kind of monarchic rule. However, it gradually became associated with specific countries like France (German: Frankreich) or Germany, rather indepently of the regime. As a matter of course, during the Weimar Republic the term "Deutsches Reich" (or just "Reich") was still associated with Germany, in spite of the newly introduced republican regime. The term was also used to distinguish between the federal (Reichs-) and the state level (Landes-) of government (today the equivalent is "Bundes-", meaning federal). There was also an "imperial court" (Reichsgericht) till 1945; however, it lost some of its influence to the Volksgerichtshof. After 1945, the term came out of use, but had some kind of afterlife, the most prominent example being the Deutsche Reichsbahn of the GDR.

The expression "Third Reich", moreover, is also ambiguous. First, it is a simple enumeration with the first and the second Reich being the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire, respectively. Second, it also bears a mythologic meaning, see Joachim of Fiore and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck for further reading. Levimanthys 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact a Wikipedia conclusion that neither Third Reich nor Nazi Germany should be used since the official contemporary English usage was German Reich. The Third was only so referred to for propaganda purposes, and Nazi applies only to the Party since most Germans were not members of it. I would suggest doing substantial edits throughout the articles so affected to reflect this. I will be posting the proposal at Projects Military history to ask editors to amend this--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense!!! "Third Reich" is widely recognized and used historic term extant in many histories, newspaper articles and so forth. Sorry, But!!! Eliminating the term is revisionist at best, and idealistic in the extremis. Many English-Germany translation problems exist (Prince v. Furst, for example), one more won't make a difference, and is a disservice to readers googling such terms. They need explanations and educational exposition, not elimination to "your standards of thought". We are after all an educational NPO at the foundation level, and that had better be the purpose of this sister project! // FrankB 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdated stuff

1. Moved outdated stuff to Talk:History of Germany/Archive1. djmutex 18:45 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
2. Ditto Material from May 2005, through end O'2006 into Talk:History of Germany/Archive2. // FrankB 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed {Original research} tag

re: At (under) section: /* Early modern Germany */

my comment: --{{Original research|date=October 2007}} Unsubstatiated on talk, no {fact} taggings in sections following

• No need to add more! // FrankB 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Early German History

I have noticed that this article is lacking any reference to Germany occurring before 100 B.C. I have noticed that the Spanish article has much less overall information, but contains facts about early Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age populations in Germany. Could it be of importance for this information to be included, and could it be that it was somehow accidentally excluded? If necessary, I will translate the information from the Spanish article, although I am not sure that it is referenced very well. Please respond.Hoopboyjode (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I propose a change regarding Cardinal Richelieu, since he was not a regent for Luis the XIV, but a prime minister and virtual ruler of France during reign of Luis the XIII. Richelieu died shortly before the Luis XIII. My proposal is to delete reference to Luis the XIV, and substitue it by comment "prime minister and virtual ruler of france by reign of Luis the XIII". Please made the change if you agree, or let me know if you have any comment regarding it. I if find neither contradictions nor the change done within next two weeks I will do it on my own. Martin

Note: "quarrel between Slovaks and Czechs as a pretext for taking over the rest" There was a quarell; however only Czech were taked. Slovakia for astablish as a souvereign state, which was obedient to Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.82.78 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested: Patrician/Patricianship

Under a proposal made by me, the pages Patrician and Patricianship -- whose names presently are not specific enough -- will be renamed as follows:

• Patrician → Patricians (Ancient Rome)
• Patricianship → Patricians (Middle Ages)

(I dropped an earlier proposal for merging the two pages.)

For the rationale for renaming the pages and a couple of associated other changes, as well as the opinions of user:Johnbod, please see the discussion page at Talk:Patricianship.

My question is, do people here support my renaming proposal, or if not support it, at least would not oppose it.

Thanks in advance for all replies--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to ancient history?

Is there a reason the this article begins with the Franks (486)? I have would thought German history would begin with Arminius and the Teutoburger Wald (AD 9). Most articles of this type include a section on prehistory as well. Kauffner (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. On 25 October 2008, the section was deleted by an IP from New York. The German article begins with Homo heidelbergensis and Homo steinheimensis, BTW. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Chancellor

If you are interested in the politics/history of Germany, you might want to take part in the discussion on Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) regarding the splitting of the original Chancellor article. --KarlFrei (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede rewritten

I rewrote the lede, mostly because the earlier version was too long. (The top of the table of contents should be visible in the opening screen.) I also thought the earlier version focused too much on the 19th century and 1871, as if it wasn't really Germany earlier, and that there quite a bit of flabby writing. It is still relentless political, which, if there is consensus, I'd like to offset with some mention of achievements in science, music, or philosophy. Kauffner (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Germany (terminology)

I propose to merge Germany (terminology) into this article. The terminology needs to be treated in the context of the respective sections about the history of Germany. There are also some WP:UNDUE issues that can be more easily settled if the article is merged into this article. Some of the content of the article Germany (terminology) will probably have to be moved into sub-articles of this article.  Cs32en  17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) this is the won that wtrote this andiriet

Turned to apathy?

In the section about the mid 19th century: "The Prussian people once again lost interest in politics and turned to apathy." How do you "turn to apathy?" Landroo (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I put an end to that apathy. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since someone re-introduced "disaster" and "apathy" [1], I'd like to hear some comments on whether this is encyclopedic language. I think not. 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See the New Cambridge Modern History Vol IX Page 332. They wrote The turning-point in the intellectual evolution of cultural into political nationalism was the collapse of Prussia in 1806. The younger generation of intellectuals such as Fichte, Arndt, Kleist and Schlegal began to preach patriotic resistance to Napoleon. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about [2] --Woogie10w (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede length

The lede has once again grown to a monster 824 words, with way too much about the 2Oth century. A lede should be about 500 words. Hitler "removing Jews from good jobs" and the 2010 financial crisis can't really be considered lede-worthy. Kauffner (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography is proportionate to the publication in English of reliable sources. If anything the number of Nazi-era items is understated. Look at the journals and publishers catalogs --Wiki must reflect what is published by scholars in English and it is not disproportionate. Deleting useful information is not a way to help users.Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The weight of the sections in the bibliography should be roughly proportional to the weight of the sections in the article itself, provided that the article itself is well-balanced. I would doubt that the most relevant English language works about the history of Germany would lend as much weight to the Nazi era as the current bibliography section does. The appropriate weight does not depend on the number of text being published about the aspect, but on the presentation chosen by texts that are covering the entire topic of the article, i.e. the history of Germany.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the published RS in English, and anyone can see how heavy they are weighted to 1933-45. That's what scholars produce (and look at the shelves at Borders--that's what serious readers want.) The problem is that there are not a lot of new books in English on the pre 1933 or post 1945 era.No damage whatever is done by presenting readers with a selection of the best books--no one is helped by deleting titles. Readers who want coverage of other eras will simply ignore the 1933-45 section. Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this reasoning, the structure of the whole article would have to be completely changed, i.e. the section about the Nazi era should be expanded to about half the length of the article. Let me clarify that the sources should not be deleted, but moved to the appropriate articles. Also, the bibliography section is not very well structured, as sections 19.6. (The Holocaust) and 19.7. (Women, children, youth) are also about books on the Nazi era. (The "Holocaust" section should be named "The Holocaust", per the respective article's lemma.)  Cs32en Talk to me  19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: What are the relevant criteria for determining balance in the bibliography section

(Context: The Further reading section in this article contains more than one hundred books. The question is whether the section contains too many books about the Nazi era. WhatamIdoing (talk))

What are the relevant criteria for determining balance in the bibliography section? The discussion is about whether (a) the relative number of published texts, as indicated by library catalogues, or (b) the relative weight given to the different aspects of a topic in published sources covering the entire topic should be the relevant criterion.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

anyone looking at new books on German history (at Borders, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, history conventions, lists in the scholarly journals etc) will immediately discover the preponderance of scholarly and popular books on the 1933-45 period. (RS have noted this as well.) This is where the RS are located and where the readers are located, so that's where the bibliography should be. Fact is there are very few English books on Germany 1600-1932, and they are fully represented in the bibliography. Cs32en does not propose to expand that list, he only want to cut back on the 1933-45 resources Wiki provides to readers. I can't see how that helps anyone. Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead section (again)

The following sentence contained in the lead section

"After the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Germany began to modernise and throw off its feudal remnants, as intellectual and cultural life flourished. Prussia grew in power. Nationalist sentiment led to the unsuccessful 1848 March Revolution."

is, in my view, misrepresenting the history of that period. First, the "intellectual and cultural life" was not in some way held back by the Napoleonic wars, but it was the influence of the French Revolution that sparked much of this activity. How Prussia's rise in power would be related to the flourishing of intellectual and cultural life is unclear, and nationalism was just one of the ideological sources of the 1948 March Revolution.

The current lead section is certainly too long, and it would be best to try to make the lead section as concise as possible. With a shorter lead, we can also avoid going into those details and interpretative statements that require rigorous sourcing (the lead section, in principle, should not contain references).  Cs32en Talk to me  20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

it's certainly possible to improve the phrasing. The text does not say intellectual life was held back by Napoleonic wars--that is a careless misreading. However the lede is not too long--the opening statement has to summarize 1000 years of the history of one of the most important countries in the world, and so so in less than 1000 words. That is a challenge and cutting out information will be a disservice to readers. We can assume that readers are interested in one era at a time, and therefore in only one or two sections of the article and the lede. Don't worry about people being flooded with information about say medieval events--they can skip that info easily enough but they cannot learn if the info they want has been deleted to save the reader time. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well-written introductory paragraphs for the main sections would be a much better way to deal with this issue. On the Napoleonic Wars: Well, the text says that "Germany began ... to throw off its feudal remnants", when the immediate effect of the end of the Napoleonic Wars was the restoration of the "old order". Certainly, more than "remnants" of the feudal order existed at the time. For the question of intellectual and cultural life in Germany, see Weimar Classicism (until 1805), inter alia. The impact of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars was primarily political, not cultural; it was the political impact that created problems for Germany's feudal rulers, not so much the cultural development.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

all sections should ideally be well-written, but many people will only read the lede so it has to both summarize the article and be self contained. I added a bit on the high culture and universities.Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede is already too long. It should be about 500 words. More than half is about the 20th century, which is way, way undue. The paragraph about WWII mentions so many different countries, it is almost a list. We're supposed to be writing about Germany, you know. Kauffner (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I trimemd the lede to 640 words--about one textbook page--which is too short. The lede coverage is proportional to what the RS and publishers produce and book readers buy. The 500 word personal suggestion does not fit Wikipedia policy or usual practice for major articles on major countries. --people go here for a short summary of German history, and it's ridiculous to cover 1000 years in 500 words. As for "so many countries" in WW2 well that's all Hitler's fault, not the editors. Rjensen (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You've cut out the Roman period from the lede entirely? Arminius is kind of a big deal in German history, you know. I would thought that the founding of the German state by Henry the Fowler might deserve a mention as well. The lede is now 58 percent on the 20th century (348 words of 602). A Concise History of Germany has (258 - 167) / 262 => 35 percent. But I gather that you have already decided that anyone who disputes what you are doing is covering up for Hitler. Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

complaints complaints. "Too Long" says Kauffner, so I reduce it. "Too short" he now says. The couple sentences on the Romans were about non-Germans, and there were so many "firsts" in 1000+ years that they don't make the cut. From a global history perspective, and from the perspective of the English readers of this version of Wikipedia, Germany is especially important in the 20th century. German readers who want to glory in their ancient roots should go to the German language article. Arminius by the way gets two sentences in the recent 400 page survey by Ozment (2004), which is exactly what the main text of this much shorter article gives him. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ozment is (327-227)/(327-17) => 32 percent about the 20th century. I realize that many people are interested in WWII, but WWII and Hitler have their own articles. The beginning sets the tone for the story. Who else begins in the middle of the Frankish period? Kauffner (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner can help not so much by removing text that readers are interested in but by his adding new material on the medieval period to the main article. We can then summarize that in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cologne

Cologne is one of the largest and most important medieval cities in Germany and can be used to illustrate the urban structure and growth. As Nicholas, Growth of the Medieval City (1997) p 332 notes, it has the best coverage in English of any medieval German city. Rjensen (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say a sentence on Cologne is fine, but a paragraph on the city is excessive. I'd be very willing to reconsider my view if you can present some scolarly work on the history of German history that affords as much space relative to the entire text as you intend to do.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think four sentences on one city gives more depth than one sentence on each of four. The problem is that the medieval section was too thin and needs more information, which I tried to provide using a variety of scholarly RS. Nicholas p 332 explicitly says Cologne is especially useful. (Berlin on the other hand, and Lubeck, are much harder to handle.) Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This article can only provide an overview. For further details, there are Holy Roman Empire, Early Modern history of Germany, and other sub-articles of this article. For in-depth coverage, each of these articles has several sub-articles.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

one short paragraph is what I would call an overview. Less than that and it is an under-view :) Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Postwar era

The article was practically blank in coverage of 1949-89--a shocking failure. Adenauer was the dominant figure, and indeed editors should be able to add information on other people and factors, rather than erase the era. The characterization of Adenauer follows the standard RS, and of course can be debated on this page. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of the content that you have added were assessments of the actual or perceived virtues of Konrad Adenauer. Irrespective of whether these judgements are true or false, are held by few or by many people, we should focus on facts, not on interpretations or assessments. Then, it is outright ridiculous to reduce the (early) postwar history of Germany to Adenauer, or to any other personality, for that matter. I must tell you that I find your approach here very misguided, and I urge you to follow the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "facts"--it's about reporting what the RS say. I agree we need other material for this section--but Adenauer dominated his era according to the RS, much like Bismarck and Napoleon dominated theirs. Editors will please add additional material--it helps more than erasures. Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added several new sections to the 1949-89 section, given a broader overview. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about factual statements based on reliable sources. Any kind of presentation of (notable) assessments and commentary needs to be subordinated to the factual description. If everything for which an RS can be found would have a legitimate place in this article, we may well end up with hundreds of pages of text. Does your source say that Adenauer as a person was more important that all other events and developments in that period of German history? Probably not. The majority of scholarly sources would not agree to such a personality-centered description of history in general, or of that period in particular. I submit that you are aware of this. You can't just pick any RS just because you happen to like what it says, in a situation in which there are hundreds of RS that are available. While I agree that there is a need for more material for this section, and I think that the inclusion of other politicians is a step in the right direction, your language is still hagiographic with regard to Adenauer, written like a novel with regard to Ludwig Erhard, and very dry with regard to Willy Brandt. It still focused far too much on persons and personalities.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to write social history but the RS are still focused on personalities for that era. How do the leading history journals characterize Adenauer? here's Waite in the #1 scholarly history journal in the US):

"HERE is the first volume of the long-awaited memoirs of one of the modern era's greatest statesmen. Surely in terms of problems confronted and surmounted, Konrad Adenauer's solid accomplishments are more impressive than Bismarck's clever triumphs. Unfortunately the high drama of Adenauer's role in reshaping postwar Germany is told in such a relentlessly dreary fashion that one wonders if the austere author were not writing it all down as an act of penance. Adenauer did not begin his remarkable career as a national statesman until he was in his seventies. Within a decade he had taught a suspicious Western world to trust his leadership of a new Germany; he had brought his crushed and confused people to an era of stability and prosperity unparalleled in German history; and he had transformed Germany's position from pariah to ally. This economic, political, and diplomatic Wunder was accomplished in part by Adenauer's great personal qualities of persistence, diplomatic skill, and unperturbable sense of purpose." (American Historical Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Jan., 1967), pp. 627-628 in JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Written by Robert G. L. Waite, a psychohistorian, not by the American Historical Review.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

yes I said it was by Waite. What the journals do is select the leading experts to write reviews of major books--the reviews are not written by the journal staff. Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mierzejewski as a source on Erhard

The biography of Mierzejewski is tendentious, and thus should not be used as a source. Moreover, it's a book about Erhard. What we need here are source about the history of Germany, or of the respective periods of the country's history.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mierzejewski is the leading expert in English on Ehard and his administration. The reviews by experts of his book have been favorable, and this is a section on Ehrhard's years in office --so there is no problem. Rjensen (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says that he is the leading expert on this period of Germany's history?  Cs32en Talk to me  18:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

please tell us who in your opinion are the leading experts in English on the German economy of 1948-65 era, the two I have in mind are Mierzejewski and Van Hook--I also cited a couple others. As for biography, please read the article--the pre 1800 period was all biography! Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Italian?

Someone is insisting that he should be included in the List of Italians (see discussion there), and backing the claim with the (unpresented) opinions of some eight Italian historians and a link to a "vote for your favourite Italian" webpage. Any thoughts on the matter?Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Historians :

• Aldo Alessandro Mola. Professor at University of Milan
• Giuseppe Parlato. Professor at S. Pio V University of Rome
• Nico Perrone. Historian and Journalist. He has collaborated with Leonardo Sciascia. Professor of the University of Bari
• Aldo Giovanni Ricci, superintendent of the Central Archives of the State and professor of history at S. Pio V University of Rome.

A cadre of internationally renowned historians.

Other historians (in the historical journal): Fabio Andriola, Emanuele Mastrangelo, Luciano Garibaldi and Vittorio G. Cardinali.

See: Storia in Rete.

• Production company specializing in high-quality documentary films ( See: Documentaries. The Broadcasters: RAI, La7, and The History Channel. )

• Magazine comes out every month ( See: Storia in Rete. ) --Davide41 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And how could you put it any clearer...Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. his Italian credentials are much stronger than his German ones. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Rjensen. I have a reliable source here that says his bolognese sauce was excellent, but I'm not going to show it to you, as I know that I am so obviously right. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

" This section is not neutral. " : History of Germany [...] --Davide41 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

section 15 Terminology related to Germany

This is a long, unsourced section that will be of interest to a small fraction of the readers of this article. I propose to spin it off into its own article, freeing up space for more coverage of the history of Germany. There will still be a link for those who want to read up on the topic. Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I created it as an article of its own, but some others thought that it should be incorporated into this (already very long) article. --Ziko (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That article was merged into this article because "Terminology" vs. "History" was not seen as a useful basis for forking, and because the other article very obviously had become a magnet for POV-based editors. (Actually, it may have been a POV magnet right from the start.) The best way would be to merge any issues related to the terminology to the respective sections of this articles. In cases in which the terminology issues are too numerous for any part of this article, we can transfer these observations to the respective existing sub-articles of this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

the official Wikipedia decision is to move to Names of Germany, which I have now done.. For the decision see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminology related to Germany Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good solution, Rjensen, thank you! --Ziko (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Hi, I've undone two vandalisms in the past two days. Maybe we should think about a temporary semi-protection if this goes on... --Gliese876 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Info&galleries of German individuals

Hey, I've noticed some a recent revision concerning info on Beethoven. I can understand both users (User:Cs32en and User:Rjensen). German history is a vast subject and it's a complicated issue maintaining an informative and encyclopaedic article. Therefore it is necessary not to go into much detail on any event or person. Nevertheless I consider it crucial to include brief information and pictures on the most decisive individuals in German history including artists, philosophers and scientists. As a matter of fact I've added two galleries to tidy up the article and to summarise some of the most important and widely known people of their respective time frames. What do you think? Is this too much? Actually I'm still looking where to put some quick mention on Friedrich Nietzsche. He was simply too influential and is still too "popular" to be completely omitted in this article... --Gliese876 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This article still indulges in personalization and excessive detail, while getting major historical developments wrong. Sturm und Drang precedes the Weimar Classicism and took place before the French Revolution could influence German literature. Did Wagner perfect Romanticism, or can his works be characterized as melodramatic? Such controversial statements should not be included in this article. We should not forget that this article is not a list of lists, with some punctuation marks and the occasional verb in between. Both Wagner and Nietzsche should be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure whether this is the best section, from a chronological viewpoint. I'd suggest the following wording for the first paragraph of this section:

The crisis of feudalism and the Enlightenment, epitomized by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), brought about a period of cultural development and diversification. Idealism as well Romanticism characterized the rebellious Sturm und Drang period as well as the Weimar Classicism. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) and Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), two writers of the epoch, remain key figures in German literature. German artists and intellectuals were heavily influenced by the French Revolution. Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) was the leading composer of Romantic music. His music influenced Franz Schubert (1797–1828) and Robert Schumann (1810–1856). Romanticist musical works, such as the operas created by Carl Maria von Weber (1786–1826), were further developed by Richard Wagner (1813–1883) within the concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk. The Brothers Grimm (1785-1863 & 1786-1859) not only wrote Grimm's Fairy Tales, but are also considered to be among the founding fathers of German philology and German studies.

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I prefer a more historic order of events. In German-Japanese relations for instance, I tried to stick to a chronological order as well. The section proposed by Cs32en looks fine to me and manages to include almost one century of philosophy and literature in a few logical and easy-to-read sentences. I guess we need a similar section labelled "High culture and science" for the German Empire-time frame. This would be the place a mention of Nietzsche would go. Carl Benz and/or Franz Kafka could then also be moved there (they are now in the Weimar Republic-section and we should place them in the periods when they made their main contributions).--Gliese876 (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal downgrades the greatest achievements of German high culture. It erases complex ideas in favor a a very simple list that does not tell the readers much. And the "crisis of feudalism" theme does not fit these people.Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but a certain downgrading is inevitable in order to keep the article within its boundaries. Although philosophical, scientific and literary developments are an important part of history, it's crucial not to overstress the extent of "History of Germany", which, by its nature, is a collection of short summaries in more or less chronological order. Nevertheless, the term "crisis of feudalism" could be rephrased to something like "period of social challenges and resulting public uprisings contesting the old feudal systems in Europe caused by the beginning industrial revolution, a growing population density and a rise of nationalism amongst others. Of course this is merely a brainstormed proposal. --Gliese876 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Crisis of feudalism" may not be the best wording. I've just tried to correct the most obvious shortcomings of the existing paragraph. (German philology redirects to German studies, for example, so the last sentence also needs to be adjusted.) The crisis of feudalism at that time was a crisis of legitimacy, as the emerging capitalism (first in the medieval trading hubs such as Venice and Rotterdam - see Erasmus von Rotterdam) created the conditions for new philosophical ideas and new cultural forms. At that time, the representatives of the new economic order were generally too weak to contest the political power of feudalism, and the bulk of the population, i.e. the peasants, were not involved in the process. Within feudalism, peasant revolts did exist. Yet, while they may have been expressions of a desire for freedom and of ideas that conflicted with the feudalist ideology, they were not the precursors of the specific philosophical and cultural developments that this paragraph seeks to describe.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the problems is that Cs32en systematically removed the sophisticated ideas--only a hundred words or so--leaving what he warned against--a list of little informative value. No one reading the proposed summary will learn anything. We can target first year university students or we can go for 12 year olds, and the former group needs our help much more. The basic assumption here is that few users want to read it straight through. They will read specific sections, probably tied into to class work they are doing. The sections can and should give serious summaries of recent scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So, what would your proposal be for the above written section by Cs32en? --Gliese876 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not an improvement. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want multiple sentences on Ludwig van Beethoven? (Should we add to the paragraph that Beethoven, along with Wagner and Bruckner, was particularly admired by the Nazis?) Why is Friedrich Schiller not mentioned in the paragraph? Why are you dwelling on German Romanticism? I don't think that's an accurate description of the period, and we are not at liberty to indulge in flaggelating, non-encyclopedic descriptions of some aspects that we personally may find intriguing, while leaving other important aspects out. Furthermore, I've corrected some awkward wording, such as the beginning of the paragraph which suggested that the epoch in German culture we are talking about would have started with the French Revolution.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Why do you want multiple sentences on Ludwig van Beethoven?" -- well that's an odd question indeed. The answer is that he is very important and we should explain why. Cs32en says a) avoid lists and b) he suggests save the readers' time by providing merely lists of names and dates. Wikipedia is a place for people to learn something. Dumbing down the article by removing details on leading cultural figures is a very bad idea. Cs32en is invited to ADD ideas and information, and to suggest ways to improve the article.Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree with Cs32en... the text about Beethoven is too much detail for an article with broad scope such as this one. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

well of course some readers will be uninterested in music or the central role it has played in German high culture. The debate is over Beethoven's influence on German culture and reads: "His use of tonal architecture in such a way as to allow significant expansion of musical forms and structures was immediately recognized as bringing a new dimension to music. His later piano music and string quartets, especially, showed the way to a completely unexplored musical universe, and influenced Franz Schubert (1797–1828) and Robert Schumann (1810–1856)." That's a nutshell of WHY he is important. Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But there are other important intellectuals... And such a paragraph on each of them would be too much I guess. In such a large article we really have to be radical. One sentence each should be kind of a rule of thumb I guess... Plus a gallery showing, let's say, 5-6 individuals from science, literature, philosophy, and music/art for each period. Therefore such a gallery should also be implemented for the Kaiserreich (e.g. with Nietzsche, Carl Benz, Siemens). Perhaps the middle ages could also use something like that (e.g. Walther von der Vogelweide, Hildegard von Bingen, Johannes Kepler), but we always have to be cautious not to overload the article...--Gliese876 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a political dispute?

Initially, I have assumed that the dispute here would be primarily about style. However, looking at the totality of the situation, I get the feeling that it is a dispute about whether to present different strands of German history in a balanced way, or whether to present certain details of German history in such a way that they fit into the specific narrative of the "German Sonderweg", from which Germany could extricate itself only with the guidance of strong personalities such as Konrad Adenauer. If this is the case, then maybe it would be best to discuss this general issue first, before tackling the details. I have absolutely no problem with describing the Sonderweg hypothesis in this article, but it is a specific, controversial theoretical approach to German history, and even the Sonderweg historians identify the Sonderweg with specific currents of thought and culture within German history.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

section 15 has a brief summary of the Sonderweg debate. I think it's balanced. Cs32en should tell us the historians he admires as "balanced." Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I do not object to including the Sonderweg debate in the article, although that section should be rather named "German historiography". Rjensen, why do you assume that I would admire any historians, why do you think that I should tell you about them, and why do you refer to yourself in the plural form?  Cs32en Talk to me  10:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

because Wikipedia is all about summarizing the reliable secondary sources, and Cs32en makes repeated references to the mysterious historians he relies for what he calls a "balanced" viewpoint, but never names any of them. I have depended on dozens of scholars--and added them to the footnotes. Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any such footnotes in the paragraph that we are discussing here.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

try again: what sources do you rely on regarding the Sonderweg debate?? Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sry guys, this is absolutely ridiculous. I'm disappointed it came to such a level. I'm out, I won't be discussing things like that. Cs32en obviously has neither real interest in general history nor in German or European history. I will make additions and corrections as I deem them necessary and useful to this article. If anybody doesn't like'em, he/she is free to revert or amend them. But I won't be leading such silly discussions about Germans needing to redeem themselves. See you.--Gliese876 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leave the discussion, Gliese876. But, frankly, I have no idea why you would assume that anyone here would need or want to "redeem" himself as a German. I don't think that my contributions to this article can be interpreted in this way. The question of whether me or anyone else is interested in the topic is somewhat beyond the point, as personal involvement or emotional attachment to an issue is often not the best basis for writing encyclopedic texts about it.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, the only thing I have said about the Sonderweg hypothesis is that it is controversial and that it is just one of several approaches in German historiography. I have not suggested any particular wording for inclusion in the article, so I don't think any particular sources are necessary at this point - a number of relevant sources are already present in the English and the German articles on the Sonderweg theory, of course. What we should discuss, however, at this point, is not how to present the Sonderweg hypothesis in this article, but whether this hypothesis should be the overall paradigm for the 18th to 20th century section of this article, or not.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the Sonderweg hypothesis in NOT "the overall paradigm for the 18th to 20th century section of this article,". Rjensen (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT say that the Sonderweg hypothesis would be "the overall paradigm for the 18th to 20th century section of this article". The wording of some of the paragraphs, however, does give undue weight to some aspect of German history (i.e. Beethoven and Romanticism), thus providing a description of that period that tends to fit into this hypothesis. We should be aware that lending undue weight is not just a stylistic issue, but leads to an unbalanced presentation of the topic. Such imbalance may be just very unsystematic, but it may also lead to a more systematic distortion of the presentation. If a number of parts of the presentation are out of balance, and many of these instances tend to support a certain interpretation, then it quite legitimate to ask whether we actually want to follow such an interpretaton (because we may conclude that it is consensual within experts in the field), or whether we would want to correct these imbalances.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any part of the article but to what you've written in this discussion (which has obviously lost its purpose...), Cs32en. I'm was hoping to talk about improving this article, and then that old chestnut is trotted out again. Frustrating. I wonder if something similar would have happened on French history or Russian history.--Gliese876 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble to understand what you are referring to, Gliese876. Which of my comments, in your view, would indicate that I would need to, or that I would intend to, redeem myself as a German?  Cs32en Talk to me  20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily your opinion, but the fact this discussion turned into a quarrel about any kind of "Sonderweg" is simply annoying^^ I merely wanted to talk about the feasibility of including facts and pics on certain individuals into such a large article...--Gliese876 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Cs32en seems confused about Germany's historiography. The importance of Beethoven's role in music is not controversial and is not part of any "Sonderweg" debate. The problem comes from Cs32en's refusal to discuss the sources he is relying upon if any. He has never cited ANY historian.Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is actually any need to present sources in order to determine that giving Beethoven as much space as all other composers of the epoch combined is misguided. But as you insist on sources, I suggest the Harvard Dictionary of Music by Willi Apel. It contains a section "V. Classicism, romanticism and modernism". (Note that the current versions of the article does dwell on romanticism, but doesn't even mention classicism and modernism in German music.) In this section, the following (German) composers are mentioned: Beethoven, Schubert, von Weber, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, and Mendelssohn. According to this source, the "latest works" of Beethoven "prepared for romanticism", while the current version of the article presents Beethoven as the "leading composer of Romantic music". For this article, we should rely more on textbooks and encyclopedic works, such as this one, and less on works on specific epochs or persons (which naturally focus on their respective topics and thus are not really suitable to determine the due weight of the topic within the overall scope of the article).  Cs32en Talk to me  14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Beethoven united Classical ideals of abstract form and balance with the concerns that would dominate Romanticism--he marks the transition. Modernism is a later movement (say 1880s+). The Harvard Dictionary mentions Beethoven, Schubert, von Weber, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, and Mendelssohn. The Wikiarticle mentions Beethoven, Schubert, von Weber, Schumann, and Wagner, so there's a good fit. But what is at issue is adding another 50 words to explain why B is important. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And if we do so for Beethoven, then we would need to explain why we would not add another 200-300 words to characterize the others. Your premise seems to be that Beethoven was the most important, and thus we would need to spend 50 words to explain why he was important, leaving almost no space left for the other composers. However, the Harvard Dictionary does not give Beethoven such prominence among the other composers. You may present other sources, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

that does not make sense. We NEED to give readers a clear idea of what happened rather than a bare list of names. What the text now does is show how and why B influenced Romantic music. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to focus on a description of the different cultural epochs and forms, rather than on the names. If we include pictures, we can put some names there, of course. (We have already discussed the issue of personalities, and although such personalities are more important in culture than in politics, I would argue for focusing on the historical trends and events.) The purpose of this article is to describe the history of Germany, not "how and why B influenced Romantic music".  Cs32en Talk to me  20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankish Empire was part of Austrasia (or Austria)

Even if it means Austria, I don't think that can be true. The Frankish Empire may include what is now Austria, but an Empire is a whole country, it can't be part of anything else. 92.20.171.31 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

hamburg was not a chief-city of the hanseatic ligue

The town of hamburg was until the middle of the 17th century not a typical chief-city of the hanseatic ligue! Hamburg was a staple place for lubeck, thats it! The overall decline of the hanseatic ligue, its struggle with the danish and dutch politics and the loss of the monopol over the baltic/german-sea trading in the 15th and 16th century made the base for hamburgs uprising growth during the 17th century. If you read the publications of the hanse you will find the cities of wismar, rostock and stralsund first mentioned. If you look for the main cities of the hanse-quarters, you will also find cologne and danzig more important to the hanse-lique than hamburg. In fact the weakening of the hanse was accompagnied by the strenghtening of the danish influented city of hamburg.--78.54.33.3 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly says Luebeck was the chief Hanseatic city. However the historians tell us: "A founding member of the Hanseatic League, Hamburg was an important center of trade throughout the Middle Ages." [Steven S. Delaware, Art and Culture of the Medieval World (2010) p. 25] The The shorter Cambridge medieval history p 852 says Hamburg was the #3 Hansa city. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Page suggestion

I suggest a shortning of this article, with more focus on building up more/strenghning the current main articles, to improve clear and consicse reading/finding/searching.

as an example, i searched for "Germany in the Middle Ages" and this unbeliveable large article suddenly appeared and almost immediately made firefox shut down the window.... After a few attempts, i managed to stop the load of the page and actually read it's content.

It's a good article, covering much topics, but it really needs to be sliced down and most of it's content moved over to -> Main Articles <-

Atleast that's my opinion. Thoughts?

Byzantios (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

talking to students I find they do not read the whole article. they read one section that is of value to them. So it's not too long for the actual users. Trimming it down will make it much less useful for any one reader. The topic covers one of the largest and most complex stories in all of world history. Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page seems to have a lot of old stuff that is probably no longer relevant. Any objections to setting up automatic archiving to archive all threads not added to in the last 90 days? --Boson (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Boson (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Any comments on what form references should take (in future)? --Boson (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Invalid references

The following references appear to be invalid (i.e. they don't seem to point to a full citation): {{sfn|Overmans|1994|pp=51–63}}{{sfn|Haar|2009|pp=363–381}}{{sfn|Hahn|Hahnova|2010|pp=659–726}}. --Boson (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I replaced those with a much more accessible citation that reviews the scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured article status

This is a former featured article. Is anyone else interested in trying to - gradually - get it back to FA status, starting with an informal review on the talk page to see what Featured Article Criteria are already met and what needs to be changed. --Boson (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Better late than never: Yes, I am. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh great! I had forgotten all about this.

Any ideas about how to go about it?

I had a quick look at the FAR (which was a long time ago). There were a number of concerns then:

• Size
• No lead section
• Lack of references
• Lack of links

In the meantime someone seems to have put the lead back, but at first glance (without really looking at the content):

• The article is *far* too long with 133KB readable prose, suggesting inadequate use of summary style.
• The TOC is far too long
• The lead looks a bit too long (should perhaps be four paragraphs), but one would need to fix the rest first, to know what needs summarizing in the lead.
• It seems to be cluttered with images.

--Boson (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It is designed to be read in chronological chunks (thus ther need for a long toc). very few people will read it straight thru--but if they do they should be satisfied. This is history & uses historical illustrations. Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it over the next couple of days and get back to you. First feeling is: I would tend to agree that it is a bit long. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The captions for the Berlin 1912 and the Scheidemann pics are definitely not acceptable. First does not say it's a painting, never mind by whom and from when. Second one implies it is an actual photo from the event, which it is not (the photo was staged later). Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Boson, we should really get into this, there are multiple issues here. The entire post reunification section is a mess... Should we maybe divide the article up into chunks at a time and go through them one after another in our sandboxes? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would start with sections 7, 10 and 11, since they are in my field of expertise and I'll be able to work through them without having to read into too much. I can also take care of the Kulturkampf issue put forth by Sundar1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that @Rjensen: has started, good news :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I revised the Kulturkampf section. It had two main problems – 1) much too long for its importance in the long swing of German history (it lasted only a few years in the 1870s and was then canceled or reversed). 2) a German used a German textbook which was not up to date with modern scholarship. (the old German interpretation was that it had merely to do with the separation of church and state, and minimized the idea of weakening or damaging the Catholic Church because of the political needs of Germany after 1950 in which the Catholics and Protestants who joined in one party CDU. Modern scholarship emphasizes it was part of a worldwide attack on Catholicism, but the main result was a strengthening of Catholics in politics. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

kulturkampf for some people not over

i have rarely come across such a blatant one-sided distortion of history, even in wikipedia. the section on kulturkampf focusses mainly on one aspect, ignoring many others and especially more important ones and totally disregards any historical background. the catholic church is painted as an innocent victim and the reader is made to think that bismarck planned a war purely out of hatred and to surpress the poles. it also totally ignores that the kulturkampf basically was a struggle for the separation of state and church which took place in many countries. this section contains mistakes and distortions in almost every sentence.

In 1871–1878, Bismarck launched the "Kulturkampf" in Prussia to reduce the power of the Catholic Church in public affairs, and keep the Poles under control.

the term “launched” is totally out of place because the kulturkampf was the product of an escalation that even bismarck could not foresee. besides, one does not “launch” something over a period of time but on a very specific date. in this context, the term also has a negative flavour which, in my view, is meant to support a pov that bismarck was bad and the catholic church was good. of course, “launched” is to imply an “attack” on the catholics which is not correct, either. some of the laws passed under bismarck only applied to prussia, others applied to the whole empire.

the way “power of the catholic church in public affairs” is mentioned here implies, that it is the most natural thing in the world and that there is nothing to it. there is a lot to find in wikipedia on separation of church and state but any such background for the kulturkampf is totally ignored. it certainly deserves mention that the poles had hard times under bismarck and that they were affected by the power struggle simply because they were catholic. but in its efforts to prevent loss of power and influence, the catholic church nutured them as a welcome support base, fomenting resitance from the pulpit against laws that barely affected the ordinary citizen. yet, the roots of the kulturkampf lay elsewhere and have nothing do do with the poles. this would be most evident if some background history of the kulturkampf wasn’t deliberately left away. disputes with the catholic church were a general issue of the time not only in germany but in all progressive countries with france leading the way. this is exactly why they are considered a “culltural struggle”. therefore, listing the suppression of the poles as the second reason for the kulturkampf again serves the above mentioned pov.

Thousands of priests and bishops were harassed or imprisoned, with large fines and closures of Catholic churches and schools. While the pope did control the selection of bishops, the Catholics supported unification and most of Bismarck's policies, and were angry at his systematic attacks.

can it get any more one-sided? why not mention the reasons? enforcing laws is not harrasment. the bishops and priests actively opposed laws and called for support in this from the pulpit. one may argue that some of the laws were harsh or unjust which is certainly what the catholic church thought but not mentioning the reasons again supports the impresseion, that a certain pov, namely the innocence of the poor church is being pushed. the selection of bishops by the pope had been a thorny issue at times but was not so in the kulturkampf. the german catholics indeed supported unification but certainly not the catholic church fearing loss of power and influence. for that very reason the catholic centre party was formed. again, the terminology “systematic attacks” implies planned, unfounded and physical agressiveness. to me, the source given for this itself sounds biased since the catholic church did not struggle for inclusion (it had been included if not at the helm through the centuries), but against exclusion.

Bismarck sought to appeal to liberals and Protestants but he failed because the Catholics were unanimous in their resistance and organized themselves to fight back politically, using their strength in other states besides Prussia. (The Kulturkampf did not extend to the other German states such as heavily Catholic Bavaria.) German nationalists feared the Polonization of the Prussian East. Bismarck saw the Kulturkampf as a means of stopping this trend, which was led by the Catholic clergy in West Prussia, Poznania and Silesia. The Poles were Catholics and subjected to harassment in the fields of education, occupations, business and public administration. German was declared to be the only official language, but in practice the Poles only adhered more closely to their traditions.

bismarck did not need to appeal to anybody in this matter because the separation of church and state had a sound majority in the reichstag. so in saying that he failded, the impression is given of the brave catholics, united in their struggle for their given rights were victorious. no rights were taken from ordinary citizens. the catholic church only succeeded in having some of the laws toned down and the one or other measure taken back. most of the laws and, altogether, the seperation of church and state remained in place. so how can anyone say that bismarck failed?

what strength did the catholics use in other states and in what way? the kulturkampf extended to the whole empire, not only prussia. in fact, the states of baden and ever so catholic bavaria already had gone through a similar process with the catholic church before unification (that can be looked up on german wikipedia). the catholic church did its best to fan the flames and to give most catholics the impressen, that not only the church but all catholics are all under attack. although not wise and certainly not fair and in light of historical experience, it is understandable that the government or german nationals regarded the incited catholics as a potential problem or a threat. in combination with polish demands this threat must have been all the more palpable and bismarck could regard the laws restricting the influence and power of the catholic church as quite helpful in this matter. yet, the bad treatment of the poles because they were poles has no place in this section.

There was little or no violence, but the new Roman Catholic Centre Party won a quarter of the seats in the Reichstag (Imperial Parliament), and its middle position on most issues allowed it to play a decisive role in the formation of majorities.

that is to say that the catholic interests were democratically represented in the reichstag. but where is the correlation between “little or no violence” and “the centre party won a quarter of seats in the reichstag”? the only interesting info in this context is, that the kulturkampf politically united the catholics and that they eventually got about 23 % of the popular vote.

The culture war gave secularists and socialists an opportunity to attack all religions, an outcome that distressed the Protestants, including Bismarck, who was a devout pietistic Protestant.

indeed, the general background of the kulturkampf was the influence of church and religion in government affairs and everybodys life. it makes no sense to differ between secularists and socialists because socialists in general are secularists, but so were the liberals and even most of the conservatives in the reichstag. as this question had been debated since the dawn of enlightenment it cannot be surprising, that secularists rose to the opportunigy. but what is meant by “attack all religions”? the protestants were also very uncomfortable with the new laws because separation of church and state generally aims at all denominations. this was not a result of religion being “attacked”. in the context of the history of germany, in this section it is totally unimportant, that the protestants or even bismarck were “distressed” by the “attacks” of the secularists on religion. this again only serves to underline the previously mentioned pov.

The Catholic anti-liberalism was led by Pope Pius IX; his death in 1878 allowed Bismarck to open negotiations with Pope Leo XIII, and led to the abandonment of the Kulturkampf in stages in the early 1880s.

“catholic anti-liberalism” is a very unorthodox and misleading way to describe the church’s resistance to the separation of church and state. although this separation certainly is part of liberal thought it was not the reason for the church’s opposition. it was only the loss of power and influence, which in the end it couldn’t prevent. the kulturkampf was not abandoned – it was simply over.

this section on kulturkampf will need major changes. Sundar1 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Separation of church and state" is not the way that modern scholars look at the issue. Bismarck was allied at the time with the liberals, were strongly opposed to Catholicism as a reactionary force. When Bismarck broke with liberals ( chiefly on the tariff issue) he ended the Kulturkampf In fact formed an alliance with the Catholic center party that was especially useful in his continuing war against the socialists. The issue is not a very big one in German history – it lasted less than a decade, and most of the key provisions were reversed, especially as Bismarck began cooperating with the Catholic center party. Bismarck himself was a pious Protestant of the pietistic variety, and was increasingly alarmed, say his biographers, when the culture war started turning against Protestant religion as well as Catholic. That was another good reason for him to stop this culture war. Rjensen (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

key regulations such as those concerning education, civil registry (incl. marriage), religious disaffiliation or politics from the pulpit remained in place. the most important provision of the whole kulturkampf was the education issue with the churches losing one of their major bases of influence. the laws that were later toned down or taken back were of minor importance for the objectives of the liberals or bismarck. as to the meaning of kulturkampf, one also has to look at other german states before unification, austria, switzerland and other countries: it was a longer lasting and very important issue and therefore, of course, seperation of church and state cannot be left out of the picture. this article focuses almost entirely on bismarck and leaves aside the aspirations of liberalism, emancipation and, last but not least, pure power politcs: who has the last word. as to the success of the kulturkampf: in light of the regulations that stayed in place, which the church fought tooth and nail, and of the dramatic loss of influence, which was not compensated by the centre party in the reichstag, it's highly debatable.Sundar1 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if looking at Switzerland for reference is a good idea, since it was not a German state (whatever that means pre-19th century) after 1648. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

zwerg nase: it's simply worth mentioning that other states and countries, such as switzerland, also had a kulturkampf. the one in switzerland was even more fierce than in germany. where does it say that switzerland was/is a german state? i only see a list: german states, austria, switzerland and other countries?

I thought you meant "german states, e.g. austria, switzerland". My confusion stemmed from my own understanding of Austria as a German state. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

rjensen: indeed, the length of the section does not reflect the importance in overall german history. yet, the way it was demanded a response and correction. the way the new version now stands, overriding my work, is impolite to say the least. the reasons given are quite lame. the general meaning of kulturkampf cannot be left out. and again, it contains mistakes:

Bismarck would not tolerate any a base of power outside Germany--in Rome--having a say in German affairs. He launched a Kulturkampf ("culture war") against the power of the pope and the Catholic Church in 1873, but only in Prussia. This gained strong support from German liberals, who saw the Catholic Church as the bastion of reaction and their greatest enemy. The Catholic element, in turn, saw in the National-Liberals as its worst enemy and formed the Center Party.

this is exactly what is meant by "asserting the supremacy of the state", which not only prussia and germany were after, but many other states and countries. bismarck did not "launch" "a" kulturkampf and the first law was already in 1871. most of the laws only applied in prussia, but by no means all of them: the pulpit and the jesuit laws were emperial laws. with these laws bismarck had the liberal's support from the very beginning. actually, the liberals were driving him.

Bismarck ......... Prussia issued numerous laws and met resistance by the arrest of many priests and bishops; the government closed many churches and confiscated property. The Catholic Church denounced the harsh new laws as anti-catholic and mustered the support of its rank and file voters across Germany. In the following elections, the Center Party won a quarter of the seats in the Imperial Diet. .................... The Center Party gained strength and became an ally of Bismarck, especially when he attacked socialism.

the reich also issued laws: pulpit law, jesuit law, civil registry law. why not mention that the church openly called upon the clergy to resist the laws? and why were they "harsh" and for whom? the church did not muster the support of its "voters" but its adherants. no churches were closed and only property related to the deed was confiscated. the centre party did not gain more strength after 1874 (in fact, from then on, 27.9%, it declined to 16.4% in 1912).

basically, the warlike rethoric "launch" and "attack" is not in place and it's worth noting that, although certainly excessiv, it was all constitutional and in accordance with the rule of law. remarkably, freedom of association and even freedom of the press remained. the article on kulturkampf naturally is in line to get a change.Sundar1 (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

this was a "war" "Kampf"....our job as editors here is to reflect the current scholarship-- and it is very harsh indeed on Bismarck and his liberal allies on the Kulturkampf. Example 1) David Blackbourn in The Long Nineteenth Century: A History of Germany, 1780-1918 (1997) says (p61) "Catholics felt themselves beleaguered within a Protestant-dominated Germany, understandably so, given the persecution they faced during the so-called Kulturkampf." 2) Tipton History of modern Germany 2003 p 165: "Catholics now actively resented the state that hounded their religious leaders and attacked their beliefs. " 3) Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom page 560 has Bismarck "lashing out against the Catholics" and he says on p 575: "Prussia was no stranger to confessional tensions, but the scope and brutality of Bismarck's anti-Catholic campaign was unprecedented in the history of the state." Historians have been even rougher on the liberals who played a major role in this culture war. As for claims that we should respect the brutality because it was handled in a constitutional fashion--- that line of thought was rejected at Nuremberg and fares very poorly in scholarship on German "excesses". The neutrality rules of Wikipedia do not say that we should be neutral regarding Bismarck's brutality, they say we should be neutral regarding What the RS say about it. Rjensen (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"reflect" also means "to think". your opinions and the sources you choose smack of bias and your comparisons are hair-raising und highly unproffessional. kampf means battle or struggle, not war and when the first law was passed it could not be forseen by anybody how things would turn out. the name kulturkampf only came up later. so it's wrong to say that bismarck "launched" it in 1871. many if not most of the following laws were a (over-)reaction to the resistance of the church. portraying the kulturkampf as persecution of catholics is distorting history beyond recognition. ordinary catholics were never persecuted and had no reason to feel beleagured. very few were actually affected by inofficial discrimination which happened mainly in prussia (heartland, certainly not rhineland) and the imperial government. there was no discrimination worth mentioning in other states. it would be correct to say that the catholic church felt beleaguered, indeed for good reason, which is a totally different matter. with a measure of justification, the church already started worrying before unification was completed. ordinary catholics were not affected by the laws and had no reason to worry, they were agitated from the pulpits. therefore, only the clerics found the laws harsh and, in tow, their adherants, the majorities in the parliaments obviously didn't. agreeably, the enforcement in some cases was considered harsh even by some liberals and protestants. why does blackbourn say "so-called" kulturkampf? perhaps you also like to say that the police is hounding you because you deliberatley refuse to pay parking tickets and you call on others to do the same. tipton simply emulates the church that the people's beliefs were attacked. beliefs were no issue. what does tipton mean by "active" resentment by "the" catholics and of what state, prussia, the empire? this certainly doesn't show in the following election results.

you cite clark writing about "bismarck lashing out at catholics": what does that say in this context? the catholics also lashed out at bismarck. clark also writes that scope and brutality of bismarck's anti-catholic "campaign" was unprecedented in the history of the state. he does not write that the "laws" were harsh. clarke also says that prussia was quite "normal" in the european context. harsh is something that is unjust or beyond necessity. the laws were by no means unjust and most of them, at least the key laws, can just as well be considered necessary considering the churches reaction. the liberals played "the" major role in the kulturkampf and they had every reason to suspect the worst from the catholic church. in what way were historians rougher with the liberals? i see no reason to be rough with them.

but here comes the most interesting argument: As for claims that we should respect the brutality because it was handled in a constitutional fashion--- that line of thought was rejected at Nuremberg and fares very poorly in scholarship on German "excesses". The neutrality rules of Wikipedia do not say that we should be neutral regarding Bismarck's brutality, they say we should be neutral regarding What the RS say about it.

only when placing the legal background of the kulturkampf on one level with the legal background of the nazi crimes one can come to such a conclusion. in nuremberg, the mentioned line of thought was rejected rightly so. i'm aware that it has become quite fashionable in some countries to draw comparisons with nazis and hitler since it makes for great killer arguments. but it is beyond me how a decent hisorian can compare this to the legal background of the kulturkampf which was totally different. besides, i did not ask for any "respect" and i did not refer to "brutality" of the kulturkampf (i don't consider the kulturkampf overly brutal). this is deliberate twisting of meaning. i wrote that it is worth noting that the the kulturkampf was "constitutional and in accordance with the rule of law". by this i foremostly mean the kulturkampf laws but also their implementation, some of which may be considered harsh. by all means, employing the full force of the law is quite often considered harsh, even today. the laws were debated and passed without any restrictions, threats or illegal force from outside. public debate was unhindered and even the church and clerics were able to express themselves outside of churches. considering the times (no full-fledged democracy) i find that pretty remarkable.

this reveals shockingly poor knowledge of history of someone claiming to be a historian and this argument is absolutely out, even if one looks at history totally one-sided in that bismarck and the liberals were crooks and the catholic clerics were saints. this is exactly what the original section looked like. as to neutrality, merely citing some rs in a short little subsection and all in the same vain is not neutral if the other side of the coin does not get its due.Sundar1 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to follow the RS here and they are in general pretty rough on Bismarck as a nasty tyrant who tried to destroy a major political party. (he later tried to destroy the Socialist Party too). (a) RS call it a war: 1) Pflanze: "Kulturkampf was primarily an “internal preventive war” against dangers, real and imagined, that threatened the consolidation ..."; 2) Schott: "Bismarck would do his best to herd the powers of Europe into an international Kulturkampf, “Culture War,” quite literally, against the Vatican." [note that the outher cvountries refused to follow] 3) Andrew: " Bismarck's war was described as a Kulturkampf, or struggle between rival cultures" 4) Steinberg: " Thus began what came to be called the 'War over Culture' or Kulturkampf." (b) RS say Bismarck "launched" it: 1) Berend: " the illiberal German state of Otto von Bismarck launched its famous Kulturkampf" 2) Encyclopedia Britannica: " in 1871, he launched the Kulturkampf....Bismarck's aim was clearly to destroy the Centre Party." 3) Frank: "In Prussia, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf"; 4) Williamson: " it seems puzzling that Bismarck should have launched so divisive a campaign as the Kulturkampf instead of attempting to integrate the large Catholic minority peacefully into the new..." 5) Conley: "Prussian government's decision to launch a severe persecution of the Church." 6) Whitfield: "Bismarck could also be very excitable, quick to identify conspiracies against the state and liable to over-reacted. [as in] his decision to launch Kulturkampf" 7) Knight: "launched an intensive persecution of German Catholicism known as the Kulturkampf," Nobody calls the Catholics saints" -- the word is "martyr" (albeit none were executed.) And yes, historians do indeed look for resemblances between the brutality and racism of the German Empire and the Nazis. are you relying on any RS for your POV???? Rjensen (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

for this pov i need not cite any sources but your very own and i highly recommend that you carefully and completely read them. otherwise one must conclude that you deliberately pick the fragments and statements that suit you. all citations listed in the last response are either quotes, out of context or not complete. it also seems, that the nature of my disagreement is not understood. just about any term used in this article can be sourced but context and logic must be kept in mind. i looked at every source given for “launch” and “war”. none of them refute what i wrote: having in mind the whole context of the issue, both terms are not appropriate here. several, if not most sources use “launch the kulturkampf (campaign)” or “launch a campaign” and go on to explain what it entailed. therefore, i suggest: “the kulturkampf was a campaign to .....” this is just as well sourced and not in conflict with the actual course of events. in the further explanation it is imperative to list both aspects of the kulturkampf in germany: separation of church and state, which bismarck cleary wanted (he said so) and analogous with developements in most of europe and, of course, the special national aspects. this is squarely supported by the sources listed in the response above. these sources also support my other arguments against the original and also against the revised article. yet, they are not without mistakes.

the worst is blurring the distinction between persecution of catholics or catholicism and persecution of church/clerics defying the law or even outrightly saying that catholics and/or catholicism were persecuted. not even the church was persecuted in the sense of the word given in wikipedia. i might add, getting someone out of your hair is not persecution. if someone was really good at persecution in the last 1000 years, it was the catholic church.

i did not write that somebody called the catholics saints but in the article they are portayed as such. the reader is also given the impression that the kulturkampf was more or less unwarranted. introducing the word "martyr", as the church depicted itself, shows where you're coming from and explains a lot. one cannot be unbiased believing the catholics under bismarck were martyrs.

it is also one thing what bismarck thought in his notes and conversations and another what the empire officially and actually did. in berend, one of the sources given, starting page 93, one is left with quite a different impression than after reading about kulturkampf in en:wikipedia. yes, berend says "launched", but else his picture is complete and not one-sided. he clearly points at the intentions on each side of the struggle and puts it into the european perspective.Sundar1 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've given lots of RS and you have given none. Instead you reveal your true sentiments by saying: might add, getting someone out of your hair is not persecution. if someone was really good at persecution in the last 1000 years, it was the catholic church. Rjensen (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

and what would my true sentiments be? even if they were not to your liking it does not change the value of my arguments unless you can prove they are biased. if you hadn't read your own sources so selectively you would know that my arguments are sourced just as yours. i can well bring in a balanced view only using your very own sources. "getting someone out of your hair" is not my sentiment but exactly what liberal minded states had in mind to get the church out of government business. even if some governments went overboard with their laws, the kulturkampf never amounted to persecution of catholics or catholicism. and, it was your mentioning of "martyr" in this context that revealed your true sentiments. i'm sorry, sidetracking a discussion on the major issues in this manner won't do anymore.Sundar1 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Church union

@Rjensen:: You added a section on Religion in Prussia under FW3 and FW4. While this is an interesting period, I have my concern if it should be in this article. Mainly because this is supposed to cover German history and not Prussian. Granted, we could add information about the same period and religious development in the other German states, but that might in turn bloat up the article. I'd say it is too particular to have its own section here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

the Union affected about two thirds of the Protestants in Germany, so that's pretty comprehensive coverage. I'm about to add a section on the Catholics (in all the states), thereby covering another large fraction of the population. As far as the other German states, I'm not planning on adding new materials on the Protestants in Hesse, Saxony Bavaria etc. etc. so you needn't fear about the bloating up the article. Rjensen (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It is broader now, but I would still argue that the information given is too detailed to be in a historic overview of Germany. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on Prussia is allowed? that would cut off about half the text. Rjensen (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not at all what I said. I just think that this particular information is not a vital one for the course of German history. Others things in Prussian history are very much so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

but the leading RS say it's important, such as Hajo Holborn. History is more than kings and field marshalls. Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Then again, the leading RS on a topic will always say the topic is important ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

our job as wikipedia editors is to tell readers what the RS say. Why do you think religious history is unimportant?? Rjensen (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that at all. I just believe that religious history in that era is not important enough to make it into an overall view of the History of Germany. It is very much important to include it in other articles. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

i agree with zwerg nase that this section gives undue weight to a certain topic for the history of germany. as with me, rjensen repeatedly misinterprets arguments: "nothing on prussia is allowed?", "..religious history is unimportant?". is there a pattern here?Sundar1 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The pattern is that I am following the RS like Holborn and Sundar1 is not revealing his sources. Rjensen (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

New article on "historiography of Germany"

I have started a new article on historiography of Germany. It overlaps a small amount with this article, and comments and suggestions are most welcome. It's a chance to broaden the coverage of Germany. Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle at Tollense around 1200BC

You might want to consider adding something about the Bronze Age battle at Tollense. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170315175229/http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322 to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210024250/http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=115015309 to https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=115015309

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:36, 20 November 2017 (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:

• Waffenstillstand gr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Map

The map "Reduction of the population of the Holy Roman Empire as a consequence of the Thirty Years War" is erroneous here because it carries Polish names of places throughout Germany (and not only for those places that became Polish after 1945). It should be replaced by a map showing German place names extant in the 16th century. If one isn't available the Polish map – appropriate only for Polish Wikipedia – should be deleted. Sca (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed – with German map. Sca (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Some points

I made some improvements recently, as you might have noticed. Surprisingly there was hardly any response from the 276 page watchers. Anyhow, i think the article is rather huge (312.000 bytes, History of France has 284.000 and the History of England has only 118.000). Some sections could be trimmed - e.g. Peasants and rural life and the entire section of Early modern Germany, Empire: Bismarck's domestic policies, Kulturkampf and religion and some of the Overview paragraphs. I also find the info on the Early Franks a bit excessive. However, IMO Early modern Germany needs to include some reference to the Northern Renaissance, which could, for example, be merged with section Culture and literacy. All the best Wikirictor 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)