Talk:German Confederation

Prussian reforms
The discussion, if one can call it that, of the Prussian reforms under Hardenberg and Stein is amazingly one-side and biased. I trust that someone better informed will re-write that section.Cosal 20:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Eleven years later this still stands. I′ve just added a POV tag at this whole section, which seems to me to be only aimed at pinpointing how good and progressive were the French Revolution and the French Empire, and how backwards were the German states before they were enlightened by the Napoleonic invasions. Pylade (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Germans
Themanwithoutapast, why don't you join the discussion on the List of Germans at Talk:List_of_Germans about who is considered German. In my opinion, Schubert was both German and Austrian. Austria was part of Germany when he was born in 1797, and when he died, there was no German country, but Austria was still a member of the German Confederation. --Chl 12:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you see it this way, George Washington should be considered a famous British freedom fighter. 1797 Austria was NOT part of Germany, Austria was an independent country heading a loose confederation of german-speaking independent countries and was at that time referred to as Austria in the whole world - not Germany. Themanwithoutapast 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not quite correct: Austria was part of the German Empire, and the Emperors of Austria (and Kings of Hungary) were simultaneously Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. They only relinquished the crown of the German Empire in 1806 when the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved. Cosal 20:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There were no Emperors of Austria until 1804. All the other Emperors in Vienna until 1804 were always Roman German Emperors. And in Austria Austrians with German mother tongue were always registered as Germans until 1938. An "Austrian nation" became national doctrine only 1945 and didn't exist before, although Austria created a fake history after 1945. 11:49 27-12-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.92.196 (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Locke
The article says: "The late 18th century was a period of political, economic, intellectual, and cultural reform, the Enlightenment (represented by figures such as Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Adam Smith)". Locke hardly counts as either late 18th century or an enlightenment figure... he died in 1704! -WHO IS THIS??? [The signature is supplied with the "WHO IS THIS" by Pika ten10 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]


 * Though I consider 18th century to be the an "Age of Enlightenment", I can't totally agree with this person (Sign your posts, PLEASE.). For me, any point in history in which people get new philosophical or political ideas can be called "Age of Enlightenment". Actually, I can say that the rise of socialism is "Age of Enlightenment"... for historians cannot agree on the time in which time that period in history happened... and that is the case of other historical periods. Thus the person who said that "The late 18th century... (represented by figures such as Locke, Rousseau etc.)" is having an error. Furthermore I extend this to the person who said that John Locke is not an enlightenment figure. Imagine he had thoughts about the Theory on Natural Laws, Social Contract and other issues mostly about freedom of the individual, even though he died in 1704. Is he the person you reject to be an enlightenment figure?? His ideas actually influenced the later Enlightenment thinkers. -Pika ten10 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit off-topic
Hi I feel that this article is a bit off-topic. The topic should be the German Confederation and not the social-economic development of Germany in the 19th century. While of course the social and economic development are important to understand the German Confederation, it is much too extensive. The focus of this article should be when it was created, who was in it and when it had ended, etc. Unfortunately the whole thing concentrates more on the development of the social and economic structure Germany. The next thing I find negative about it is a the liberal use of qualifying particles like "reactionary" or "regime" (which tends to have a negative conotation nowadays). I also find the use of the word "bourgeois" a bit problematic in this connection. The article also has a left bias and interpertation of events I find a bit disturbing. I think it should be reworked on that basis. --Ebralph 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

North German Confederation and 1871 Empire
The North German Confederation was not changed to the German Empire. I corrected that. Limburg was not constituent member of the Federtaion, so I took it out of the paragraph, which was too complicated anyway. --Kipala 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The North German Confederation was changed to the German Empire. According to Nelson Case the North German Confederation Reichstag changed the name to the German Empire on 10 December 1870. I have corrected your correction. Int21h (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I cant remove it ... (do you see in article) ... --EnBobM 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now its repaired ... --EnBobM 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the German Confederation was the current tricolour
Someone keeps removing the flag of the German Confederation, which was used from 1848 onward, which was the black-red-yellow tricolour. If you do not believe this, look on the web for Flags of the World or FOTW and look at the historical flags of Germany, it will display the German Confederation as having this flag from 1848 to the confederation's dissolution in 1866.
 * Picture from - Haigst-Mann (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The black-red-gold tricolour was the flag of the revolutionists of 1848/49. During that time the German Confederation wasn't active. The German Confederation was reestablished between 1850 and 1851 under Austrian Presidency. Habsburg Austria supressed the use of that tricolour, for example at the subjugation of the Vienna city council by Austrian general Windischgrätz, he ran down that tricolour lying in the dust with his horse. That was the position of the Habsburg monarchy regarding that flag. Please don't confuse the Frankfurt National Assembly of 1848/49 with the German Confederation, which de facto didn't exist between 1848 and 1850. Blinder Seher 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

from 1848 until ...?


I think, the black-red-gold (tricolour) was not really "official".

--Haigst-Mann (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See Flag_of_Germany.

Right picture needed
If the Netherlands, Denmark and England where part of the German Federation than why are they not part of it in the picture of the German Federation that comes with this article. 82.168.243.40 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They were not "part of the German Federation" with their complete lands, I think it is about Hannover, and the Duchy of Limburg (1839–67) and for Denmark the situation which lead to the First Schleswig War. --Haigst-Mann (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Three member states were ruled by foreign monarchs: the King of Denmark, the King of the Netherlands, and the King of Great Britain (until 1837) were members of the German Confederation; the first as Duke of Holstein, the second as Grand Duke of Luxembourg and Duke of Limburg, and the latter as King of Hanover.
 * The Netherlands: When William III died leaving only his daughter Wilhelmina as an heir, the crown of the Netherlands passed to Wilhelmina. However, the crown of Luxembourg passed to a male of another branch of the House of Nassau ... --Haigst-Mann (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not independent?
These 5 years of independence mark the first and only time since the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the 10th century when these states were free from higher political control.

I don't know who wrote this, but the states were already acting independently after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. The rule of Napoleon was an exception.The German Confederation was some kind of NATO: It was about mutual defense, fortresses have been built to defend the territory. There was a Federal Assembly in Frankfurt to coordinate the armies and the politics of the states, like the EU does, but there was no head of state or ruler of the confederation,which means the states were independent. Every state had it's own constitution and passed it's own laws.Johnny2323 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Every state had it's own constitution and passed it's own laws" guess what that is the case for every state of the US and every state of the Federal Republic of Germany as well, so I guess those states are independent as well, aren't they? 78.42.252.102 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Membership
In the "Members" section it says "23 smaller and tiny member states shared five votes in the Federal Assembly." Surely, given the size of the article and the importance of the subject, it would be worth the trouble to list those smaller states; I imagine I am not the only one to come to this article to find out who exactly the members of the Confederation were. Languagehat (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes in the list of signatories?
I have some questions regarding the list of signatories:

1) See the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_German_Confederation

According to the article in this link, the Duchy of Lauenburg is listed (Number 38) as one of the states of the German Confederation. However, this state is not listed as one of the signatories. Is this an omission, or did Lauenburg never sign but still become a confederation member?

2) Both Holstein and "Denmark on account of Holstein" are listed among the signatories. This seems redundant.  Is this a mistake?

3) Even if we add Lauenburg to the signatories and disregard "Denmark on account of Holstein", this still leaves us with a count of 40, but the article says the Confederation was made up of 39 states. Is there an explanation for this apparent disparity?

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komorgan81 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What did the Federation actually do?
I agree with Ebralph and his 'A bit off topic' section in that the content of confederation activity is largely transmitted as an abstract battle between vague ideological forces. It is lacking in detail of the decisions made within the confederation, and the reach of these decisions. I would like to know to what extent the decrees of the assembly were evenly applied throughout the federation. The battle between liberalism and reaction type language should be cut as I'm sure many such discussions can be found in more pertinent articles.

I don't agree with Ebralph's objection to the words 'reactionary' or 'regime'. However, describing Prussia as 'backward' does sound inappropriate.

confederation as a buffer
since austria and prussia were both members of the confederation, it can hardly have been meant as a buffer between the two. therefore i removed that sentence.17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Sundar1 (talk)

Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia
Should the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia be shown on the map as "Territory of member states outside of the confederation"? Alekksandr (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should as it was part of Austria. In the German and French version of this article, the kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia is included in the German Confederation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.214.83 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Today part of
Shouldn't Russia be mentioned in this section, with regard to the Kaliningrad enclave? It sure looks like it, based on the maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.144.253 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Austrian Empire
Hi,

"except Istria, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol, and Vorarlberg" is contradicting the maps, as well checked other articles of this. But maybe someone as well look on it and verify it, before removal. Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC))


 * The map seems ok, but why not use this one instead? It's in German but at least you see clearly what was in and what wasn't (Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol are in, but not Istria)--Lubiesque (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Deutscher_Bund.png/1024px-Deutscher_Bund.png


 * Also this map from the Cambridge Modern History Atlas (1912):
 * http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/german_confederation_1815.htm
 * Well, the first map is already part of the article, I don't think the standard globe type infobox picture should be removed, since it identically-correctly shows the situation.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Had that map been the infobox map, instead of being out of view at the tail end of the article, people would probably not have been wondering if this and that was part of the G. Confederation or not.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Membership - Reuss
Should the list include: -

1. Reuss-Ebersdorf - until 1824?

2. Reuss-Lobenstein - until 1824?

3. Reuss-Lobenstein-Ebersdorf - 1824-48?

Alekksandr (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without entirely checking, theoretically/logically everything has to be listed that once was a member (and of course attribute the timeline).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

Dutchmen as ethnic minority
Back in the days the dividing line between germans and dutch weren't as clear as today, and the limburgish dialect is closely related to the dialects of the northern rhineprovice. i don't think one can count the dutchmen of Limburg as an ethinuc minority Norschweden (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would even go so far to say that ethnic minorities were not exactly a matter for the Confederation, but more for the member states. Ziko (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic of this article: the G.C. or the period?
Hello, I allow myself to ask a similar question as above. I think that a lot of the content is more about the years of 1815-1866 as a historical period, but not about the G.C. itself, what it did and how it worked. The general content about the period should be shortened in a nice summary. Kind regards, Ziko (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The Holstein note suggested that Schleswig was part of the Holstein duchy
It simply wasn't. The two might have been declared inseparable, de jure they weren't (and de facto, as it turned out, they were also not inseparable).

The articles on the duchies also make it clear that they truely were seperate duchies, with only Holstein being part of the HRE and Sleswig being a de jure and de factor Danish duchy.

I've removed the mentioning of Schleswig. While there's very important history between them and the wars that ended in the annexation of both duchies by Prussia, these are details that should be discussed elsewhere. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023
For the table of states within the German Confederation listed under the 'History' tab: The states' government type (e.g. Kingdom, Grand Duchy, etc.) should be listed either in the same box as the name; or preferably in a column adjacent to it, so sorting by the type would be possible. WikiWilliard (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: for several reasons. The changes you're requesting are numerous and need to be specified exactly. As in, grab the source code for the table, do your modifications, and post the results here in the talk page for implementation. Also, you may need to back your changes with citations. Finally, such a change might be controversial with other editors, so you should probably first seek consensus to make them. Xan747 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t even a confederation
It was a Association Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead's first sentence: "The German Confederation was an association of 39 predominantly German-speaking sovereign states in Central Europe. "Confederation" is part of the translated name, "association" is a definition of what it was. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)