Jump to content

Talk:West Germany/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Oh dear

This article is still riddled with the private philosophies of a small number of wikipedia authors, making the text a mess of what is mostly a good overview over West Germany, interspersed with endeavours in hairsplitting over the term "Germany". Insofar as there are incorrect statements, I am going to remove them. Anorak2 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically false claims deleted: That the international car registration code was "D" only in West Germany, that "Deutschland" was commonly used as term for West Germany, that West German delegations in international events would always take part under the name "Germany". Anorak2 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong

The article is totally wrong. There wasn't an old FRG and a new one. It is the same FRG, because eastern Germany joined the FRG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.245.133 (talk • contribs)

Yes. One example is the Category:Former member states of the United Nations. So 2 German states left the UN in 1990, and a new one was admitted? Hilarious nonsense. This article shows nicely what is wrong with English Wikipedia (and with those Wikipedias that translate content and POV from the English one). -- Matthead  Discuß   23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The articles name should be changed to "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990". The term "West Germany" is slang and not proper phrasing for an encyclopaedic article. You can still direct searches for the colloquial term "West Germany" to this page, but the name of the article as it is now is not appropriate at all, it is just a sign of lacking quality control. It is the souvereign right of a country to give herself a name, and the official name in English is "Federal Republic of Germany" and nothing else. If there will be no objections in the next days i will change the articles name to the correct term. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

West Germany is not slang but an example if WP:COMMONNAME for that period. By all means redirect Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990 the other way. Agathoclea (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your thought. I'm aware of this WP policy. But i thought this will be superseded by neutrality and political correctness. If not clarified, that this is colloquial language, the term "West Germany" can be considered derogatory, and i am sure enough people feel that way, and i guess this is why this topic pops up from time to time, people expect better from an encyclopaedic article.
But even if the "common name" policy is more important, the usual way to distugiush between the two German countries of that time was the usage of the phrase BRD (even in everyday language more common than Westdeutschland), which translates into "Federal Republic of Germany". So again the conclusion is, the title has to be changed. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't know where you are, but people round here (Wales) refered to it as West Germany. Even using the abreviation as you suggest is clearly not politically neutral as the article shows and I had a workmate back in Germany docked points in his exam for using it. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite sure, that until the 1970s the newspapers referred to it almost always simply as Germany.Henrig (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
In Germany? Or in English media? In a Western context or in an international context? Agathoclea (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the perception of two German states and therefore on which occasions the term was mentioned. For instance, before 1968 there was only one German Olympia team. Until then, sport events were hardly a cause for such a perception. Furthermore: Only a few states in the world recognized the GDR as a second German state. Their view of Germany included for a long time predominantely only the western German state, which claimed an exclusive mandate for the entire German people. Btw., until the 1960s the GDR did the same. Therefore, the terms West Germany and East Germany likely for a long time were mentioned predominantly in cases, when the context made it necessary.Henrig (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have spent quite some times comparing old movies with their later remakes. Much that did not need explaining initially needed to to be explained (spelled out) in a later version because the context got lost. Today hardly anybody would know what the Great War was. We know it as World War I. While in 1966 in was blindingly obvious that the team involved was West Germany and therefore a mention of Germany would suffice today in retrospect we can not leave in unambiguated. Also there are enaugh sources closer to the time refering to it like that. Yes it is political posturing - Being in the English language wikipedia we use English usage and English usage would have had a Western bias supporting West German bias. Agathoclea (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
In the early decades after WWII the usual term for West Germany was simply Germany and West Germany was predominatly used in cases, when the context made it necessary for clarification. But this context arose already before the establishment of the Federal Republic. Therfore it's wrong to equalize West Germany with the state of the Federal Republic of Germany. The term describes the same topic only for the time betw. 1949 and 1990. But the establishment of a politically defined territory, which became known as West Germany, began between 1945 and 1949, while the Fed. Rep. of Germany is a still existing state. This source of a frequent confusion should be corrected in the article! Henrig (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see any harm in this solution: refer the serch term "West Germany" to the article and name the article "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990". Everyone will find the article, everyone will know what it is about, and this even helpes make a point clearer that should be made for someone searching for a "West Germany"-article and wanting to educate oneself about the topic. I don't see a reason for anyone objecting to that, other than the possible motivation to use a slightly derogatory term rather than a political neutral term, and that's not a good reason. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Client state of the United States?

The USA were the predominance and protecting power of the Western World during the Cold War, but it would be nonsense to describe the Federal Republic of Germany or any other Westeuropean state of the 1970s or 1980s in any way as a client state of the USA, according to the definition of this term in Wikipedia. A source about the time of the Korean War, which mentions this term (Does it?) is here not helpfull. And a book about Franco-German relations during the 1960s neither. De Gaulle, who left the military part of the Nato for more independence from the USA, often urged Germany to prefer a closer relationship to France than to the USA. The German leader's answer always was, that only the USA could protect West Europe. A French press reaction of this time was to blame West Germany for beeing a client state of the USA. (Unthinkable in the 1970s, during the time of Helmut Schmidt and Giscard d'Estaing. Henrig (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

West Germany was militarily dominated by US and other Western forces during the Cold War, plus it depended on US financial aid through the Marshall Plan to rebuild its economy in the first place. The military domination existed into the 1980s and began dissolving in the 1990s. Plus East Germany during the 1960s was economically recovered, that doesn't change its widely acknowledged domination by the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Is your argument really that the US dominated West Germany in the same way that the USSR dominated Eest Germany, as you imply at the end? -- Nidator T / C 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No de: iw

There is no [[de:]] interwiki? -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because this artificial state does not exist in the German language. For the history of the Federal Republic of Germany before 1990 see de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990)--Beliar (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Education During Separation

When the wall was up, Berlin's school was taught differently depending on which side a person lived on. For example, in West Berlin, the students would be taught English and French while East Berlin would learn Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdelga2093 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

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

The result of the move request was: CLOSED as this is basically a duplication of a closure 3 days ago of a similar discussion at Talk:East Germany#Before an edit war starts. That was closed as a consensus to keep that article at the current name per WP:COMMONNAME. When the discussion was started by the editor who opened this one it was made clear by the initiator that it was meant to apply to this article as well. Thus a new RM here is bad faith forum shopping and this RM should never have been started. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


– I would like to request the move as on both pages the discussion has been going for quite some time and in my books the WP:COMMONNAME issue just does not pull anymore. I have no problems at all to use the current names as a disambiguation. I believe an article, also its title, should be as correct as possible. I do live in the FRG and meet English speaking expats quite regularly and nearly 25 years after the unification the term East Germany is, just as in German, used to describe what once was the GDR. I also sensed a slight discrimination against German editors who brought up the issue in the past and as a German/British binational I find that highly irritating. As already stated in the talk page the German Wikipedia differentiates quite well between Vereinigtes Königreich (UK), Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Irland (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), Königreich Großbritannien (Kingdom of Great Britain), Schottland (Scotland), Wales, Nordirland (Northern Ireland), England, Isle of Man and so forth even though the common name for the whole lot in German would be “England” and as a half Scot this would bug me. Catflap08 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: There is also an article History of Germany (1945–90). --Boson (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Most reliable sources since Ostpolitik in the early 1970s typically name articles about the now former GDR as "German Democratic Republic." Previously they had used the term "East Germany" because it was considered to be part of the Federal Republic of Germany until they renounced their claim, and recognized the GDR. Similarly articles about the two Koreas still use the terms "North" and "South" because both parts are either part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Republic of Korea, depending on which claim is correct. Since the Republic of China's (Taiwan's) claim to mainland China is no longer recognized, we now refer to mainland China as the People's Republic of China. This outdated naming has a Cold War feel to it, which detracts from the appearance of neutrality.
I think the West Germany article should be merged into Federal Republic of Germany, since the FRG is the same state it was when it was established. All that has changed is that it has enlarged its borders to incorporate some of the territory that had been part of Germany before 1945. Both Canada and the U.S. have substantially increased their borders since their foundings, yet we not pretend there is no state continuity. If a spin-off article is necessary, it should be the "History of the FRG (1949-1990). It is after all about a period of history of the FRG rather than a previously existing state.
TFD (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits to the infobox

The edits to the infobox to specify under type of government

  1. "de facto puppet state of the United States" or
  2. "under de facto influence of the United States

need reverting for a number of reasons:

  • The infobox entry government_type is expected to contain a classification, comparable with other countries', as to whether the country is constituted as a republic, a constitutional monarchy, etc.; the field is not suitable or intended for an assessment of the influence of individual countries on its politics. The use of a noncompliant value for the government_type parameter results in the article being placed in the category Former country articles requiring maintenance.
  • In the body of the article it is appropriate to discuss changes in the country's status and restrictions on its sovereignty over time, but the issue is far too complicated to discuss in the infobox.
  • Whether the cited source is reliable or not, it does not support a purported statement of fact of this nature. The source is clearly describing East German propaganda, not objective reality. It says:

    "East German officials and the East German press tried to mobilize their vision of a unified German culture against American influences. ...In the context of a divided Germany, their focus on American cultural influences allowed East German authorities to stress what was evil about capitalism and Werstern imperialism . . . They probably appealed to anti-Semites by claiming that Washington official promoted Wall Street and "Hollywood politics". Given these accusations, the West German government appeared as a mere puppet of the United States."[emphasis added]

  • Since the edits are clearly contentious and interfere with the operation of the template, we need discussion (and consensus) here before changing. I am, therefore, restoring the original consensus version.

--Boson (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonn was not capital, but still Berlin

On West-German's point of view, not Bonn, but Berlin was still the capital. Bonn was the place of the gouvement and both parliaments (Upper and Lower House). It' s right that Bonn was the de facto capital, but the reason why Bonn and not the more important Francfort became the place of the parliament was, that Bonn was seen as provisorium. Flk-Brdrf (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bonn was the capital , yes it was provisional but it was the official capital and NOT just seat of parliament and government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.146.247 (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
berlin being capital and Bonn being seat of Parliament/government was only the situation after reunification and before partliment government moved to berlin109.192.146.247 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Bonn was never capital. This is addressed in the German article. --2.245.173.119 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency

If there is an extra article for West Germany, then there should be an article for every border change. Territory changes without change of political system happen all the time, but the countries don't get two articles. It's ridiculous if we consider all the small changes of which many aren't even aware of. As already mentioned by others, the Federal Republic of Germany didn't cease to exist after 1990. The German article is named "History of the Federal Republic of Germany until 1990". --2.245.173.119 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

FRG 1949-1990 office holders

Someone, i suspect a "sour Kraut", has been editing 1949-1990 FRG articles to call the offices "Chancellor of Germany" "Foreign Minister of Germany" etc. even though those people were *not* all-German office holders.

Thoughts on what to do?

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is wrong as the Federal Republic of Germany did not seize to exist after 1990. Sorry this whole article is politically, historically and by constitutional and international  law completely wrong and out of space. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. "West Germany" was a common term to refer to the FRG before its expansion in 1990. The U.S. and Canada, which are also federations, have added states/provinces/territories over time, but we do not treat each annexation as establishing a new country. TFD (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur. The (FRG) Federal Republic of Germany did not cease to exist. "West Germany" is nothing more than the colloquial English language name that (until 1990) was used for the Federal Republic of Germany. According to constitutional and international law, the "enlarged" Federal Republic of Germany (known simply as "Germany") is thus the continuation of the pre-1990 Federal Republic of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur also, see? Once West Germany is not a country or a state, it should not be forced in peoples' place of birth, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Well should we bin parts of the Infobox then and rename the article or merge it with FRG main article?--Catflap08 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"West Germany" was a country for 41 years. If South Korea were to absorb North Korea, would Wikipedia ignore the sixty-plus years of division and just have one big Korea article? I really hate German hyper-nationalism.
Paul Austin (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

West Germany is and never was a country. The FRG is a country the infobox is simply not correct. Why should that have anything to do with nationalism if the displayed information in the infobox is wrong? Nobody contests the articles content. If one looks at the German counterpart of the article the map showed in the intro is far more informative on what the article is about. The FRG exists since 1949. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC) We don't need an info box for West Germany. It would be like having a different article for the USA before Texas joined.86.181.160.231 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The last revert of an infobox came with the edit summary '"west germany" is the same germany that exists today and has existed since 1949"'. I am tempted to revert because that is not true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope sorry, West Germany was never a Country. The Federal Republic of Germany exists since 1949 – and not until 1990. The text describes the FRG before Unification so far so good, but the Infobox is misleading in the sense to indicate that the FRG seized to exist in 1990. What used to be the GDR joined the Federal Republic of Germany hence joined a federation … same goes for the Saarland during the 1950`s. The article may be fine as it is but in contrast to many “Peoples Republics” of the East the FRG still exists. One can certainly add an infobox but the one that was in place was factually simply false. It is not too much to ask to follow the perimeters international law sets. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Did the capital change? --John (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope the seat of government changed. Which can be seen by the fact that Bonn was called Bundesstadt after unification. Having that in mind Brasil moved its capital to Brasilia. The issue of a capital was tricky as Bonn was regarded only as a provisional seat of government. This is also reflected in the East Germany issue. There officially never was an East Germany but a GDR. Same goes for West Germany – there never was a country officially called that name. It is kind of dubious to label something with an infobox giving an official character to something that never was the case. I do get common name issue … but sorry the FRG’s status as a country never changed since 1949. Allied occupation ended in 1990 yes but still nothing changed in terms of a federation. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Did a wall come down? Did the borders change? --John (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The wall came down and the GDR joined the FRG – no new state was founded – only one seized to exist and that was the GDR. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Did the borders change? I think you mean "ceased", not "seized", by the way. --John (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the borders changed as they did when Saarland joined and as did the borders of the USA changed with every state that joined the union. Keeping in mind that due to constitutional mattes the unification was always the primary goal of the Grundgesetz (constitution of Germany) hence even in schoolbooks the borders of the GDR, where shown differently compared to other states. Bottom line however is that the FRG was not refounded after unification – and this what the old infobox hinted at. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. I think you will struggle to portray it as being like the United States, which had no wall, did not change its capital, and did not absorb another country. Good luck anyway though. --John (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see it as a struggle but the infobox was simply wrong – the FRG did not stop to exist in 1990 and when being exact a country called West Germany simply never existed. Secondly the FRG did not absorb the GDR but what once was the GDR democratically decided to join the Federal Republic. For a short while before unification there was the discussion of a confederation between the FRG and the GDR this indeed would have been a new sort of state. Even though the German unification was from the beginning a aim that Germany’s constitution was based on there does exist a procedure on how a territory can join the Federal Republic as was the case with the GDR. This provision was made by section 23 of the German Constitution. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise your campaign here was in support of an edit you had already made. That isn't ok. Please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached. Some more questions for you to think about as you continue to learn about this topic; did West Germany have full sovereignty? Did the new country change its postal codes after reunification? --John (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well there are quite a few editors involved on this issue. This was my first edit on the issue for over a week following an unexplained IP-edit. Referring to your question certainly postal codes had to change as the West and East used the same system that led to same codes. When you refer to full sovereignty the allied forces lost their special status. Never the less there was no re-founding of the FRG, nor did the national anthem change, nor did the flag change, nor did the currency change (the east even joined the currency prior to unification). Most of all however, did the constitution or governmental/political system of the FRG change? No. Did the FRG had to reapply or renegotiate its membership in international organisations like EU or UN? No. Please keep in mind that the FRG was a member of the UN before the GDR was. Was Neutrality hence leaving NATO discussed, yes. When one looks at the German equivalent to the article its title translates as “History of the Federal Republic of Germany (until 1990)”, the infobox shows the territorial changes including a differentiation before and after 1957. In the end the infobox is, as also others have pointed out, misleading giving the impression the country, hence the political system of the FRG, changed after 1990 which is not the case. There never were two FRGs, but different phases which is the case in the history of many countries. When one looks at the Soviet Union it clearly did cease to exist when the Russian Federation was founded. So either one would have to change the article’s title, or alter the infobox. As I have pointed out West Germany was never ever a country’s official name which then makes it even more bizarre to add an infobox with a country’s official name that exists since 1949 until present. Legally and formally the unification took place with the GDR (or five new federal states) acceding to the FRG. In the end of the day an article, including its infobox and title, should be as unambiguous as possible which is not the case here. Certainly one could decide that unambiguity is a secondary matter in Wikipedia, one then has to live with mediocrity, factual errors and smattering.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand all the points you are making. On an issue like this it is better to seek consensus before changing the article. The infobox has (I think) been there for quite a while. What is the hurry? --John (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see this discussion on the current talk pages resurfaces since 2011. The criticism of the current article is always about the same issue. In my mind deleting the infobox would ease some of the criticism and its obvious why the infobox is misleading. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox is misleading, should delete 86.181.163.171 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some interesting viewpoints above, but far too many that are distorted by their holders not being native English speakers or by those who would try to impose another language's idiom on English common usage. Before reunification there certainly was a country that was commonly called West Germany in English. Whether it was officially called something else is neither here not there; that was its common name in the language of this encyclopaedia. Note that the main page for Germany that is linked from the infobox does cover this period and gives (in the first line!) the official state title. So West Germany is not being entirely separated from the present constitution of the FDR, but the independent existence of West Germany for many decades certainly deserves its own page as society, laws and culture in that country were markedly different to those in the east. People bellyaching about how the FDR didn't change in 1990 and that USA and Canada don't have additional pages are conveniently overlooking the fact that there are plenty of countries for whom we do have additional pages. Take a look at the succession of pages for United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom. This is exactly the same structure that the West Germany and Germany pages have. A top level page with the simple country name (United Kingdom; Germany) not the full state title (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Federal Republic of Germany), that describes most of the history of that country's territory and constitution through many years, with specific pages for isolated periods of that country's existence. This page and its infobox are fine as it is; go and do something more useful. Pyrope 16:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In both articles, that is East Germany and West Germany, the “common name” argument is quite a bit misused and overstretched. At a closer look this also reveals factual errors. As in this case the infobox. Also the native speaker argument is to say the least – absurd. I grew up bilingual and English is a Lingua Franca so just because the editing language is English editing the English Wikipedia is not restricted to native speakers only. The German equivalent to this article solved the problem by naming the article “History of the Federal Republic of Germany (until 1990)” (Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990)). It beats me why some find it hard to name both articles factually correct and use the other terms as a redirect --- but oh no … god and behold the reader could learn something – now we don’t want that do we? In one incident a user said he was sick of “German Nationalism” which to my mind was downright racist and insulting to say the least. As I am binational (British/German) I find it highly irritating that “German Bashing” seems quite acceptable to some here – which in turn means, that the racism and discrimination problem is not a one way road. There NEVER was a county named neither West Germany nor East Germany – never ever. And yes the articles on United Kingdom, Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland use the also factually correct names referring to a certain timeline. In German the UK is colloquially and commonly referred to as “England”. Never the less in the German Wikipedia articles exist on Vereinigtes Königreich (UK), Schottland (Scotland), Wales, Nordirland (Nothern Ireland), Isle of Man and so forth. Thankfully they did not follow the common name concept here by calling the whole lot “England” – which as a half Scot would bug me big times. In the end the advice to do something useful is to convey correct information or simply not edit. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not at all misused. The concept exists due to the principle of least astonishment. In other words, when someone is looking for an article on West Germany (the most likely search in English) they should find an article titled "West Germany". The article may then tell them (as this one does) that this is a commonly used term for a state that was formally called the FDR, but that sort of didactic role is best played by prose, where the difference can be explained properly, rather than the title, where it cannot. People in Germany know what the Federal Republic of Germany is, therefore naming an article using that convention in the German Wikipedia makes sense. Trying to use that logic here, which is not a resource aimed at Germans, is daft. The England example is spurious, because while "England" may be the colloquial term Germans use to refer to the UK it is also the term that Germans presumably use to refer to the constituent nation as well. Therefore the term is ambiguous and so the UK article is titled to remove ambiguity. If the German colloquial term for the UK, used in respected media sources, was something like "Tommyland" then no ambiguity would exist and German Wikipedia would be free to call their article that if they so chose. Whether they would or not is up to them. Quite how you work out that calling a country West Germany amounts to "German Bashing" is entirely unclear. Just because some German speakers can also speak English (shock!) doesn't mean that their interpretation of English usage should hold for all articles on German subjects at the English Wikipedia. Similarly, what we do here should not limit the manner in which German Wikipedia arrange and title their articles. To impose one culture on another, as you are attempting, is actually pretty racist so do please look to your own behaviour before slinging mud at others. Here we use the same terms and syntax as would be used in native English sources and as most native English speakers would understand it. Insisting on absolute lexicographical punctiliousness in article titles is certainly not useful in a general usage encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Pyrope 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well in my books it just seems though that the German Wikipedia is simply politically and factually more correct then. The terms West and East Germany are simply a Cold War product and in some parts of the world that war may still be going on – but! – Such countries never ever existed – also in other leading English encyclopaedias AND CIA resources nor in the UN. Even the simple English version Wikipedia is able to follow that logic. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below, where you suggestion was shot down in flames. Whether or not there ever was a country officially called West Germany is utterly irrelevant. The de facto name for the FDR during that period in the English speaking world was and is "West Germany", and I really don't see your problem with that. There is certainly nothing at all politically incorrect about its usage. Perhaps West and East Germany have some derogatory meanings in German? I don't know, but they certainly do not in English. Languages use different terms and words for entities from other language cultures all the time, that's just how it is. For example, there isn't and never was a city in the UK called "Londres", yet I don't see armies of French-speaking Brits heading over to French Wikipedia demanding that they change their article name to "London". Invoking official documents (CIA, UN, etc.) when talking about information presented in a general use encyclopaedia is, again, spurious. Simple English Wikipedia is specifically and explicitly not aimed at native English speakers, so again, using terms that are within the native English idiom isn't nearly so important. Pyrope 20:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
West and East Germany have no derogatory meaning in German. I think Catflap08 simply got carried away from his initial point: the infobox is wrong. Invoking official documents (CIA, UN, etc.) when talking about information presented in a general use encyclopaedia is, again, spurious. That is surely correct for the common naming of the article `West Germany`. But in the Infobox it says "Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland)", the name of the official documents (CIA, UN, etc.) and underneath it "1949-1990", and that is simply wrong. Common name and technical name don´t match, as the Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949 and was never dissolved and still exists today.
I don´t use wiki regularly, but I heard you´re allowed to delete unsourced stuff. If noone comes up with a reliable source which claims that the Federal Republic of Germany lasted only until 1990, shall we delete the infobox? Or just shorten the Infobox, (but then remove vital info?) 89.13.17.125 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The infobox isn't wrong, though. This page is about West Germany, which is the common name for the FDR in the period 1949-1990. That is precisely what the infobox shows. Nowhere at the top does it say that the FDR ceased to exist in 1990, and if you click on the right arrow on the right side, next to the date range, it takes you to a page that deals with the FDR since 1990. The events that start and end this period are shown lower down as the establishment of this state and the reunification. Again, there is nothing there to say that the FDR ceased to exist. Pyrope 03:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about but it is FRG not FDR since 1949--Catflap08 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for a few years now, when it started to take more time discussing with stubborn individuals about non-sourced pet facts they wanted to have than to progress with the content. Frustrating. This discussion here is a prime example for that: readers of this infobox will think the FRG ceased to exist in 1990. That's what it says, right? Okay, that's factually wrong, but maybe we can start a year long discussion about it and leave the error in with flimsy arguments if we're only stubborn enough? Constructive people will move away and give up ultimately, so the most stubborn person wins. And after five years the error is still in. Disgraceful. (I guess that this comment will be erased for whatever reason.) On the more constructive side: what about the alternative headline for the infobox "West Germany, common name for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) from 1949-1990". That would be correct. But it would change somebody's pet, so maybe also not working. :( 84.58.76.157 (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

East Germany and West Germany

I have adjusted both the lead paras and the substance of the article to represent more accurately West Germany's evolving understanding both of East Germany and 'Germany as whole'. Unfortunately, that understanding had built into it, a series of unresolved contentions, resulting in formulations that were obscure, sophistical, and incoherent; with the consequence that these were widely misrepresented at the time (and in subsequent non-academic discourse). But the actuality was always that from 1973, West Germany accorded East Germany qualified recognition as an independent sovereign state; and that the form that the Reunification and the Two-plus-Four treaties took 1990 were only possible because of those recognitions (notional qualifications notwithstanding). TomHennell (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Capital

This edit puts Berlin into the box as 'de jure' capital. That is outright false. Berlin was under allied administration until 1990, so the former capital of the Reich wasn't even part of the Bonn Republic. --94.220.31.91 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether Berlin was part of the Federal Republic is a different matter, but the lead currently states "The city of Bonn was its de facto capital city (Berlin was symbolically named the de jure capital city in the West German Basic Law). " The relevant addition to Article 22 ("The capital of the Federal Republic of Germany is Berlin") was, I believe, made with effect from 1 September 2006. This should perhaps be stated clearly in the text. It might also be more appropriate to describe Bonn as the provisional capital (or provisional seat of government institutions). Without further references, we should probably be careful not to imply that Berlin was recognized as the capital by other governments. --Boson (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You cant have or make any legal claims over the name or status of a territory which is not under your jurisdiction. Any changes to the Basic Law after 1990 are secondary in this matter here (West Germany). --94.220.31.91 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is not appropriate to state that Berlin was the de jure capital during this period. I think it would be appropriate to give Bonn as the "provisional capital" (rather than de facto) in the infobox and probably add a footnote, as well as (later) giving more details about the status of Berlin in the body. On consideration, I think the statement about Berlin being symbolically named as the capital in the Basic Law needs removing, rather than changing.--Boson (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The claim that Berlin was named as capital de jure in the pre-1990 Basic Law is an anachronism. TomHennell (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
re: "provisional capital in the infobox" That's exactly what I'd avoid. Anything inside the infobox is -in popular terms- 'offical' and becomes a welcoming tool for the creation of alternative facts: 'provisional', 'symbolic' and the likes create supposedly complex yet 'offical', 'de facto' and 'de jure' (half) truths to fit certain people's agenda. --94.220.31.91 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We wouldn't go that far wrong, simply calling Bonn the capital of West Germany. That is how it was known at the time; the 'provisional' bit (though technically true) only became prominent after reunification. TomHennell (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't like to state that Bonn was the capital without qualification in a footnote. In this sort of article (as opposed to the main article on a currently existing country) I think infobox entries will be taken by default as applying to practically the whole period, and I think the provisional nature of Bonn as a capital was quite prominent in the days when "DDR" had to be in quotes. I think Bonn was first (officially) referred to in a statute as the Bundeshauptstadt about 1970. In 1949, Bonn was chosen officially (by the Parlamentarischer Rat and the first Bundestag) as the provisional seat of the federal institutions" ["vorläufige[r] Sitz der Bundesorgane"]. The first Bundestag added (roughly translated) "The leading federal institutions will transfer their seat to the capital of Germany, Berlin, as soon as general, free, secret, and direct elections in the whole of Berlin and in the Soviet Occupation Zone have been held." So there is an argument for retaining some mention of Berlin in a footnote. --Boson (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would not regard the Bundestag notice as indicating anything more than a pious hope; Berlin could not be recognised as the 'capital' so long as it remained formally under four-power control, hence any such aspiration would have been conditional on a 'Final Settlement'. Which, of course, was precisely the grounds under which the British and Americans would reserve their non-recognition of East Berlin as the capital of the GDR, when otherwise recognising East Germany as a sovereign state. This article is not about 'Germany' but about 'West Germany'; a country that always studedly maintained itself as a provisional state with a provisional constitution, and a provisional capital. TomHennell (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
As the article currently has no mention of 'provisional', I would support something like that last sentence anywhere in the body text. --94.220.31.91 (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps an "article of faith" rather than a "pious hope", but I agree in principle. They were at great pains to stress that the seat of government and the constitution were provisional and "one day" Germany would be re-united (with its capital, Berlin). Part of the problem is the article title, because the article is really about the "Federal Republic of Germany (1949–1990)"; it could be regarded as a sub-article of "History of Germany (1945–90)" (summarized in the section "West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany)"). But the English common name conflates geography and politics. It is the Federal Republic of Germany that (from about 1970) had a provisional capital (before that it was a provisional seat of government institutions), and it is Bonn from which the government and/or the framers of the constitution professed to speak on behalf of all Germans. And they were, in 1949, careful to use "seat of government institutions" and not "capital". In spite of the name of the infobox, West Germany is not really a "former country"; it was the English common name of the state officially called "the Federal Republic of Germany", which did not cease to exist in 1990, though it naturally ceased to be called "West Germany". Even here, it is not possible to do all the necessary verbal gymnastics. In the long term, I think we really need a section on the status of "West Germany" (the Federal Republic of Germany) (and its parts) and of Berlin (and its parts) over the period 1949–1990, to replace or complement the section "Position towards East Germany". This should probably include a brief discussion of the original Article 23 (which included Greater Berlin as one of the parts of Germany to which the Basic Law applied), the national and international "Berlin clause", the gradual/partial recognition of East and West Germany, etc.) But this is easier said than done. There is probably enough sourced material for at least one separate article. For the time being, I would give the capital as "Bonn" but, particularly because of the period 1949–1970, add an infobox footnote somewhat similar to the one used for the Netherlands, where there is also a distinction between "capital" and "seat of government". --Boson (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the proposed parallel Boson. The Netherlands has a distinction between "capital" and "seat of government"; but these are applied to the same political entity. Although the Federal Republic was pernickety about describing Bonn as the "capital" of West Germany, nevertheless Berlin was never given the status of West German "capital"; whether de jure or defacto. In the rehetoric of the Federal Republic; Berlin was only ever the capital of "Germany"; and though the Federal Republic claimed to be identical (within its own boundaries) to the German Reich, it did not claim to be "Germany". All of which was much too metaphysical for West Germay's international allies (and indeed for a large proportion of German constitutional lawyers). During the period of West Germany's existence, everyone outside Germany considered Bonn as both the 'capital' and 'seat of government'; a fact that the standard designation of the state in this period as "The Bonn Republic" demonstrates. TomHennell (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you back up your claims with sources? Not just this one post but your previous posts, too. You are constantly distinguishing between Germany and West Germany, calling it "the Bonn republic", speaking of its "period of existence" (implying that it is over, when the state continued to exist past 1990). Is any of this historically / politically justified? Can you provide sources to support this stance? This stance is reflected in there even being a separate article on "West Germany", separate from post-1990 FRG, which I am sceptical of. Boson points this out, too. Why is this? 92.196.44.114 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that Berlin should be given as the capital of West Germany, either de facto or de jure. But before 1970 the situation would appear to be (roughly) that the Federal Republic had only a provisional seat of government institutions and no capital, apparently leaving Berlin as the capital of Germany. The Federal Republic may not have claimed to be Germany in so many words, but they claimed (before the Hallstein Doctrine was abandoned) to speak for or on behalf of all of Germany (or at least the whole of the German people); they went to great lengths to prevent the recognition of the German Democratic Republic, and they objected to the country being called the equivalent of "the German Federal Republic" as opposed to "the Federal Republic of Germany. Since the reader's expectation is that the city given under the heading "capital" was the permanent seat of government and actually the official capital for the whole period I think a footnote is appropriate. I am currently thinking of something like
Capital: Bonnf
Footnote f: At first, Bonn was referred to only as the provisional seat of government institutions, but from the early 1970s it was called the "federal capital" (Bundeshauptstadt). [To be added later: ](see Status of West Germany and Berlin)
--Boson (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad we seem agreed that Berlin should not have been noted as the de jure capital. Otherwise I agree with the footnote. You should note. though, that the 1950s Hallstein Doctrine was not simply abandoned; the key 1973 decision of the Federal Constitional Court also declared it to have been unconstitutional - as incompatible with the constitutional duty of all Federal institutions not to place impediments in the path towards achieving German unity. (If the GDR was not recognised a de jure German state, it could not validly declare its accession to the Basic Law; and unification would be prevented) Though this does not affect the issue of Bonn being the 'capitial', you must also be wary of taking any statements concerning the legal status of 'Germany' from the 1950s at face value. This was the era of the 'Battle of the Courts'; such that the Federal Constitutional Court was throughout seeking to counter what it considered a grossly improper understanding of the nature of the continuing German state that had been promulgated by German academic lawyers, with strong support from the Federal Court of Justice. From the perspective of the FCC, in 1949 there had been no valid German government institutions; the entire German judiciary, civil service and university professorship having been perverted into "A power apparatus in the service of the Nazi Party" during the Hitler period; and having lost all valid government institutions long before 1945, Germany clearly could not have had a valid capital in which to house them. TomHennell (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is this a seperate article covering the history until 1990?

It gives the impression that this was a state that seized to exist in 1990, a common misconception in the media of countries like the UK (where West Germany is often distinguished from post 1990 Germany, and say, their sporting successes considered separate), when in fact it's the same state that continued to exist beyond 1990, with additional territory and still exists today under the same name (including its institutions). The only thing that changed is the colloquial name (previously "West Germany", now "Germany"), not the official one "Federal Republic of Germany". 92.196.44.114 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed an article on Germany; of which this represents a particular historical section; and the elements of continuity that you outline can be explored there. Contemporary historians however, within and without Germany, do now tend to distinguish the 'Berlin Republic' from the 'Bonn Republic'; and so this makes a natural sub-division. In which respect, the formal continuation of the institutions of the 'West German' Federal Republic in the 'German' Federal Republic may be considered to a degree as window-dressing. The Berlin Republic, as is increasingly clear, is not simply the Bonn Republic with extra territory and population; for one thing, it has a radically changed constitution - with all the 'provisional' elements removed; for another, the Cold War context has entirely gone, post-1990 'Germany' is almost wholly EU-orientated, where 'West Germany' had for most of its history, been Atlantic-orientated. TomHennell (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back. I have follow-up remarks. Firstly, "the Cold War context has entirely gone, post-1990 'Germany' is almost wholly EU-orientated, where 'West Germany' had for most of its history, been Atlantic-orientated." How is this specific to Germany? / would this not warrant a separate article for most European countries? Secondly, can you provide citations for your claim that "contemporary historians however, within and without Germany, do now tend to distinguish the 'Berlin Republic' from the 'Bonn Republic'". Specifically going as far in the distinction of these phases as considering it an entirely new state post-1990 almost. You will notice I've asked this in the discussion further up as well (so no need to reply twice). Lastly, "radically changed constitution" is it radically changed? For instance compared to changes in the French constitution post WW2 (4th to 5th republic)? 92.196.25.237 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed 92.196.25.237; and look at the next door neighbours, and we find a counterpart division of articles. A general article on France and a sub-article on the French Fourth Republic; a general article Poland, and a sub-article People's Republic of Poland on the same state from 1945 to 1990. It makes sense for Cold-War states, of which Poland, East Germany and West Germany are classic examples; to split their history around 1990. France it is more logical to split at 1958; as this defines, in France, the change from a colonial, to a European state. As for the radical change to the constitution; you only need to read the new preamble and Article 23. West Germany had specifically defined itself as a provisional state with provisional institutions, constitutionally bound to keep itself open to those parts of Germany outside its borders. The rewritten constitution adopted to allow re-unification, defines a complete state, one where the 'German People' has full identity with the German State, and where all the institutions of that state are now organs of the German 'nation as a whole'; such that there are now no 'parts' of the German people outside of the German state. Of course translating that full union of the German people into an economic and political reality has proved a very long-term agenda; but that totally new agenda is exactly why a break at 1990 makes sense. As to current scholarly understanding of the differences between the Bonn Republic and the Berlin republic, this article provides a good summary: http://www.kas.de/upload/Publikationen/Panorama/2009/1/goertemaker.pdf
"The reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990 also marked the birth of the “Berlin Republic”, although this was not so apparent at first. Whilst the GDR ceased to exist with East Germany’s accession to the jurisdiction of the Basic Law (GG) according to Article 23 GG the GDR, it was not clear at first how strongly the “old” Federal Republic would be affected by this turning point in history."
TomHennell (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on West Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities

There is nothing about ethnic minorities like the Frisians. Did Western Germany support their languages and cultures or not? 220.244.101.70 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990"

Someone keeps changing "1990" to 1989 as they used to do on the West Berlin, thinking the Fall of the Berlin Wall equaled the legal end of divided Berlin and divided Germany. It didn't. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Anthem .ogg File

As of the 17 December 2017 revision, the .ogg file used for the West German anthem includes the first and second stanzas of the Deutschlandlied. Would a reversion to an instrumental version (i.e. the one found on modern Germany's page) be more appropriate?

EtheyB (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps add a caption explaining that only the third stanza was used st least?

EtheyB (talk) 06:46, 12 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Only ever an informal name

If this were 1988, I would still be advocating that we don't mislead our readers into thinking that there was a country called West Germany, with capital letters, when this was never so. Bankster's preferred text is misleading and erroneous and perpetuates the myth that there was an actual country called West Germany, and that it was legally a different country to modern reunited Germany. Paul Benjamin Austin 01:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The legal status of Germany is a different article; and your major points are (I think) dealt with there. 'Germany' now may be the legal continuation of 'West Germany' then, but it is a very different (and much bigger) country. It is now moreover a country identified with a unified German people, where West Germany never was; and in recognition of which its two uniting former components signed up by treaty to a radical transformation of its constitution. The article is about that country that existed in a particular form from 1949 to 1990, and which was then almost universally referred to by English speakers as 'West Germany' - and labelled so in maps, publications and academic works. That country was always understood as not being 'Germany as a whole', and it was never then referred to as the 'Bonn Republic' , a retrospective (and technical) term which I do not think has any business being in the lede of this article. The official name for West Germany was indeed then the 'Federal Republic of Germany'; but that cannot stand as the title of this article, as that is now the official name for the united 'Germany'. Similar considerations apply in the case of the article title, 'East Germany'. Whether Bankster's wording is ideal, is a moot point; this opening sentence has taken a number of different forms. But I do not support your proposed alternative as it stands. TomHennell (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
not sure about this edit "The Cold War era West Germany is sometimes retrospectively called the "Bonn Republic" as it is seen as a reconstituted continuation of the Weimar Republic." Do you have a citation for it? Not so much for the usage "Bonn Republic", but the assertion that West Germany 'was seen as a reconstituted continuation of the Weimar Republic'. Certainly the Federal Republic saw itself as a continuation of the 'overall state' that was organised as the German Reich; but in its early decades it took great pains to distinguish itself both from Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic; such that in 1949, Germany was a constitutional tabula rasa. The Nazi Regime was characterised a 'criminal state' (hence never a true state at all); while the Weimar Republic was characterised as a 'failed state' whose irremediably flawed institutions and constitution had made possible the emergence of its Nazi successors. The 'Civil Servant Case' rested on the legal principle that neither previous regime had continued in the Federal Republic. TomHennell (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@TomHennell: I found a newspaper in 1949 that uses the term "Bonn Republic" in reference to the young FRG, so it's not only a retrospective term - https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1978&dat=19491126&id=jZE0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=MaoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1501,6882758 Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Good find; though a 1949 usage should be regarded more as prospective that contemporary; and very much, journalese. A parallel - Bonn Republic/Weimar Republic - is clearly intended yo be understood there; and that was something the new FRG was very keen to avoid. 'West Germany' was a much safer and more acceptable descriptor. TomHennell (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@TomHennell: has "Bonn Republic" become much more common since 1990? Adam Carr/Psephos didn't like using 'West Germany' in Wikipedia infoboxes for Germans under Bonn's jurisdiction who were born or who died between 1949 and 1990. Yes, there was no country called 'West Germany' with capital letters, but using "Federal Republic of Germany" to disambiguate from the GDR does not work because 'Federal Republic of Germany' is also the name of "reunited Germany". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
My reading suggests that 'Bonn Republic" is sometimes used where the writer wants to distinguish the Federal Republic before 1990; from the "Berlin Republic", the Federal Republic since 1990. TomHennell (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
"there was no country called 'West Germany' with capital letters" There certainly was on the maps and globes I used in school back then. --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Khajidha:, Dr. Carr's issue is that at no time was the FRG's official legal name 'West Germany', it was only ever just 'Germany' PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
As we write using the common name, the fact that West Germany was not an official name is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should use commonly known name. Whether "West Germany" being official or not is totally irrelevant in Wikipedia. The same goes to other countries such as South Korea (not "Republic of Korea"); Taiwan (not "Republic of China"); South Vietnam (not "Republic of Vietnam); etc. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Same Country

@Bluesatellite:, you are trying to invent a new country. The FRG continued to exist during and after the process of German reunification, which formally was a joining of some states according to the German constitution. This might be compared to Texas joining the US in 1845. Did that create a new country, which would justify the sentence "Was a country till Feb 19th 1845"? definitely no. So please discuss the issue here. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nillurcheier, No. {{3125A|talk}} 14:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Nillurcheier's concern is legit. Calling it "West Germany" is not neutral. The term came into usage during the Cold War in order to differentiate the FRG from the GDR. When you talk about West Germany, you are simply referring to the time period of the FRG, which has a legal continuity till present day. It is a bias that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Just like people have somehow seperated the Republic of China and Taiwan, where the split is even more random. The Republic of China didn't end after the Chinese Civil War. It continued to represent all of China in the United Nations until the 70s and legally still claims to be all of China and Mongolia despiting being reduced to a couple of islands. Now having an article on Taiwan as a country has led most people believe Taiwan was a name of a country and that said country was generally recognized by governments around the world. The problem with Wikipedia is when something is established, it is cited all over the Internet and it becomes fact. --2001:16B8:3188:1700:E10F:304:A93C:D5B8 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
You do need to differentiate (modern day) Germany from the two Germanies during the Cold War though. The legal status of those countries is not the point of the title. Also, East and West Germany are the common names for the countries during that time, especially in Germany. --Yhdwww (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

alte Bundesrepublik

I opt to also incorporate the nostalgic term alte Bundesrepublik in the article somewhere, probably the section of Present geographical and political terminology. Just like Bonn Republic, it was coined in retrospect, but is a bit more colloquial. Nevertheless, it is common enough in usage that it's included in the German article. --2003:EF:170B:F984:F9A1:1A4E:BC5B:2A1A (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting the lede

Since @Nillurcheier: reverted my edits on making the lede from "is" to "was", I think that we should rewrite the first sentence of the lede since it is a country's historical era isn't it?

To coincide with North Vietnam and South Yemen which are divided nations during the Cold War, I think we should make it so that the first sentence is concise enough that it won't confuse readers because of the use of the present tense in the sentence. Any thoughts? PyroFloe (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that the article has a dubious name, just because it is the (holy) Common name. The name IS the common name for the country during the period, not WAS. It's an awful name, imho, and I said so on this page (archived). I avoid to use it in articles. Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, East Germany, - all these are as common as wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for missing the new discussion. I was refering to a former discussion that ended with the long standing sentence: "West Germany is the common English name for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG; German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, BRD; ), retrospectively designated the Bonn Republic,[3] in the period between its formation on 23 May 1949 and German reunification on 3 October 1990." This is a concise and perfect description of the topic. I do not see any need for changes. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
agree absolutely; if anything, the term West Germany is more current now as a term for this historic political entity, and not only in English, than it was during the latter part of its existence. The term 'Federal Republic' now being ambiguous as to whether unified or divided Germany is being referred to. TomHennell (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to this "RfC" Please read about RfCs and how to do them properly. I'd like to point you to WP:RFCBEFORE in particular, but the whole page may be useful to you. If you want to collaborate on a lede rewrite, go ahead, but don't make a formal RfC out of it before you've even begun a local discussion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Opposed to this "RfC" I do not see, why thos RFC would be necessary. Just make a proposal, what to change regarding my desription. And things are not real difficult:
@Nillurcheier: here is my proposal, since West Germany ceased to exist but the Federal Republic of Germany continued on just like what you listed above, I propose we just leave a footnote like this: "officially the Federal Republic of Germany,[a] was a..." with the note stating "West Germany is the common name for the Federal Republic of Germany between 1949-1990" or something like that and explain in the end of the lede paragraph the continuation of the Federal government but with added states from the East. What do you think? PyroFloe (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@PyroFloe: your proposal poins towards the right direction. However "West germany ceased to exist" is still dubious. This was a colloquial name, which lost its meaning after reunification. So what ceased was the usage of this designation. Both in Germany and in the English speaking world.
How about: "The term "West Germany" fell out of use after German reunification, the federal government meanwhile continues to this day through the unified Germany" PyroFloe (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Except that "West Germany" as a term has not fallen out of use at all; even though the political entity that it denotes no longer exists in that form. If you are today discussing the Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt in the 1970s, you would now be more, rather than less likely to state him as leading 'West Germany' rather than as leading of the 'Federal Republic of Germany'. Even in German. TomHennell (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes and no: It was no longer used to describe the current Germany. But it continued to be used when refering to FRG in historical context of the period of 49-90 eg debating the Ostpolitik. Nillurcheier (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you; my point exactly. TomHennell (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Nillurcheier, considering that my phrasing explained exactly what you are saying here why did you revert it? --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think, it is exactly the same. but I will not revert any more, ok?Nillurcheier (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There never was a state called "West Germany". There was and still is the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, therefore this whole article is inaccurate and superfluous. There is no need to make an artificial hiatus in 1990. Only Brits can invent such a BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:e2:3719:8d82:151:6051:b10f:4daf (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

same country

I am still trying to find a solution that mentions the continuity of the country though using the "former country" template. The footnote works pretty fine, but the phrase "continued as an Federal Republic" sounds strange. Why note using the full name? --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Because it sounds horribly repetitive and clunky in English. By contrast, the phrasing "continued as an enlarged Federal Republic" sounds perfectly natural. It was the FR, it is still the FR, and it has gotten larger. All of that is covered in the note. There is no reason to expand this to Federal Republic of Germany when the infobox is already headed as "Federal Republic of Germany" and contains the same phrase at several other points before you get to that footnote. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't "an" mean something completely different than "the"?
"An enlarged Federal Republic" means "an enlarged version of the Federal Republic". The shorter form is more natural in English.--Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I owe @Fluffy89502 an apology for my sloppy understanding of his edit that I just reverted; my explanation of the revert is nonsense. However. I stand by the revert itself. He's trying to say that West Germany wasn't sovereign before it signed the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The reality is that it had limitations on its sovereignty (as described in that article). But it still did a lot of the things sovereign states do — like sign treaties! It's not correct to say it was still a French-British-American condominium. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's all good. From my understanding of the situation, however, is that West Germany did have limitations on its sovereignty only because the three powers permitted it to possess any sovereignty on its behalf. I'm pretty sure that ultimate sovereignty was possessed by the Allied Control Council and that Germany was nominally under military occupation until the ratification of the treaty that you mentioned. The powers always had an ability to amend the laws of Germany since it was under military occupation. Also, the Allied Control Council page states that Germany was a condominium. It seems that it was a condominium that was essentially granted home rule, similar to British Overseas Territories. Fluffy89502 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Limited sovereignty is still sovereignty. Canada didn't get full control of foreign policy until 1918 and didn't have a separate constitution until 1982. I don't think Canada's sovereignty needs clarification, do you? These issues are complicated and require some expertise at interpretation; I'd suggest relying on secondary sources to avoid lapsing into original research Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a "former state"

Joesom333 added the descrpition "This article is about the state that existed prior to German reunification known as the Federal Republic of Germany or West Germany. For the present-day Federal Republic of Germany, see Germany" I want to stress and repeat that it is not a former state. The English Wikipedia has decided to use the template "former state/country", though it descripes a certain period of a state that is existing without legal disruptions till today. This is clearly formulated in the article, hence ok. Any formulation that the state ceased to exist is wrong and utmost missleading. Nillurcheier (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nillurcheier: Should we still use Template:About to differentiate this period from the article on modern-day Germany? Joesom333 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joesom333: I'd prefered to do so. But since I'm not a native speaker I leave the decision to others.--Nillurcheier (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
How would you like the template to read? I am a native English speaker. Joesom333 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nillurcheier: Check out my edit (using about template). Is it better? Joesom333 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edits were horrible. It made it seem as if West Germany still exists. I reverted back to the last stable version. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I only did that because @Nillurcheier said, The English Wikipedia has decided to use the template "former state/country", though it descripes a certain period of a state that is existing without legal disruptions till today. (emphasis added). Also, I do not appreciate you saying that my edits "are horrible." I am going to get a third opinion on this issue. Joesom333 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not know enough about templates. But yes, the country which was then named West Germany still exists. Nillurcheier (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
There might be a linguistic confusion, @Nillurcheier. When an English speaker says West Germany, we are typically referring to a period of the state in which there was a dispute between Free West Germany and the Communist DDR. Although both states were united, we view West Germany and modern-day Germany to be two separate geopolitical phenomena. Joesom333 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nillurcheier, I requested a third opinion Joesom333 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the usage of "West Germany" in English and will not comment, since this is something the English speaking community has to decide. However beyond any wording, an encyclopadia must not make false statements, eg that "West Germany" refers to a "former state". --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Nillurcheier to what extent is the current Federal Republic of Germany just an enlarged BRD? The capital has moved, there are more provinces, but has much else changed? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
100%. The constitution, all legal and administrative entities stayed the same. You might compare it to the U.S. when Alaska joint the nation. You might refer to the 2+2 treaty that reestablished full sovereignity as the most relevant difference. Nillurcheier (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Rfc about template usage

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:SNOW. West Germany was officially the Federal Republic of Germany, which continues today. The DDR accessed to the Federal Republican during reunification. The status quo—This article is about the Federal Republic of Germany as it existed from 1949–1990. For the Federal Republic of Germany as it exists today, see Germany.—accurately describes West Germany's political status. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a dispute between editors about how to use the about template to differentiate this article from modern-day Germany. 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Joesom333 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Any diffs or other information? CMD (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
For more information, see the above discussion on this Talk Page, entitled "Not a 'former state.'" Joesom333 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


@Nillurcheier
so as request-for-comment volunteer, I'd say "West Germany" is no more, but BRD lives on, and "West Germany" was just informal English language usage. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we close this rfc?Joesom333 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Rfc about flag

I saw that the ACTUAL national flag was replaced with the "coat-of-armsed" [koʊt.əf.ɑːrmzd] version instead. I added both, but then I felt guilty about not starting an RFC. After all, there were already reverts within the span of 2 minutes, and invoking WP:3RR... well, you know where this is going. 134.22.84.45 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted. Accordingly, I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag - just discuss in the normal way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Whoops. Guess I didn't read that first. *facepalms in disbelief* ANYWAYS, what is the evidence that the state flag should be included, let alone as though it was the only flag? Germany's modern-day flag was in use by civilians during the Cold War, while the flag that used to be the sole one was the state flag (used by the government) then and now. So what's does the community think? Civil (regular dudes)? State (government peeps)? Both? Only one thing's for sure- we need to prevent a repeat of the Austria-Hungary situation. 134.22.84.45 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger

Merge with the Federal Republic of Germany article? Why is there two separate articles for the same country? Germany CicolasMoon (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources often discuss them separately, and they have easily distinguishable scopes. CMD (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, periods of history tend to be discussed separately. There is already a History of Germany 1990-Present article: History of Germany (1990–present). So, if an article is required to talk about the history of Germany from 1949-1990 then one should be created. This article doesn't do that though. CicolasMoon (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree from german native perspective splitting these up is just wrong, current germany and "west germany" is the same thing. it's like having a different USA article for everytime land was added. Norschweden (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfc about flag

I saw that the ACTUAL national flag was replaced with the "coat-of-armsed" [koʊt.əf.ɑːrmzd] version instead. I added both, but then I felt guilty about not starting an RFC. After all, there were already reverts within the span of 2 minutes, and invoking WP:3RR... well, you know where this is going. 134.22.84.45 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted. Accordingly, I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag - just discuss in the normal way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Whoops. Guess I didn't read that first. *facepalms in disbelief* ANYWAYS, what is the evidence that the state flag should be included, let alone as though it was the only flag? Germany's modern-day flag was in use by civilians during the Cold War, while the flag that used to be the sole one was the state flag (used by the government) then and now. So what's does the community think? Civil (regular dudes)? State (government peeps)? Both? Only one thing's for sure- we need to prevent a repeat of the Austria-Hungary situation. 134.22.84.45 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger

Merge with the Federal Republic of Germany article? Why is there two separate articles for the same country? Germany CicolasMoon (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources often discuss them separately, and they have easily distinguishable scopes. CMD (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, periods of history tend to be discussed separately. There is already a History of Germany 1990-Present article: History of Germany (1990–present). So, if an article is required to talk about the history of Germany from 1949-1990 then one should be created. This article doesn't do that though. CicolasMoon (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree from german native perspective splitting these up is just wrong, current germany and "west germany" is the same thing. it's like having a different USA article for everytime land was added. Norschweden (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Willy Brandt section is too large?

The Willy Brandt section is under the History section of West Germany. This person ruled for 4 years only yet there are so many details about what happened while he was Chancellor and most of that are not historical events just legislation that was passed. Bly000 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Amusingly at almost 7000 words the Willy Brandt subsection is almost half of this article, and over half the length of the Willy Brandt article. Certainly seems some could be merged into the main article. CMD (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems like the sections were copied from the main article so I think no actions are needed there.
I replaced the whole subsection with a modified part of Willy Brandt's lead section which talks about his chancellorship. Probably more improvements can be done there as there are no references Bly000 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

How did west Germany repair ties with east Germany

I thought that they were always enemies Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

NO: Entspannungspolitik, friedliche Koexistenz etc.Nillurcheier (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Usydydjwhxyxhx: Please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion about the topic. Yue🌙 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Germany/Archive_2&oldid=1259672221"