Talk:German Empire/Archive 2

The Territorial legacy section
1. Hlučín Region, on the Czech–Polish border in Silesia, from which most Germans were deported following WWII. But the Hlučín Region article says the opposite, ...different from the rest of the millions of German-speakers in the country, the region was spared a mass expulsion, and only 3000 citizens had to emigrate. 2. The legend makes no sense. Currently, there are three markings - for the territories lost in WW1, in WW2, and in both WW1 and WW2. But Elsaß, Eupen, Hlučín and Memelland are marked as only lost in WW1. Northern Ostpreußen is marked as lost in both WW1 and WW2. And then, both Posen-Westpreußen (WW1) and the rest of East Germany (WW2) are combined into one line because they both were given to Poland (so that it clashes with the rest of the table in the regard of the date). 3. Why are the names in German? They have no reason to be - Alsace is both historical and English. 4. Why are some names italicized and others not? It's a mess. Here is my edit. Please, help.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you your edits were constructive.


 * 1. - proportional number for a small region
 * 2. - fixed
 * 3. - in a German article German historical names may be used at first place, especially if it is denoting and meant for territories inside Germany with official names
 * 4. - In the earlier version, the German names were written like so(KIENGIR (talk))


 * First of all, your English is unintelligible. Second, why have you marked East Brandenburg and northern East Prussia as lost in both World Wars? It's patently false.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I realized, did not check the draft, fixed already. On the other issue, it is not false, since these territories became part of Germany again after 1939.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Oh no, you are an edit-warring vandal. Will you ever stop? Your edit literally means that Kaliningrad changed hands as many times as Alsace... Where can I report you? Do you not understand what you are doing? This is incredibly misleading.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have to warn you to watch your words, since what is really misleading how you call me, sorry, I am definitely not an edit-warring vadal, and not knowing what vandalism is is really concerning, all of this shows of not knowing the fundamental policies of our community. On the content, sorry, on East Prussia I realized my mistake, will correct it.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Stop with the passive-aggressive tone. On the topic - I separated the line with the lands given to Poland in two to resolve the conflict with the rest of the article (as it's misleading to depict two areas as one). This is why I'm insisting on counting the East Brandenburg, southern East Prussia, etc. line as an exclusive WW2 loss, whereas Posen, Upper Silesia, etc. as both. I'm waiting for suggestions as to how better to denote the current territory of the Province of Posen, for example, or even feedback as to the whole point of the table. Instead, you marked East Prussia as lost in WW1 and reverted my correction. Even now, you are missing the point and have not reverted your edit. Also, you could not even edit properly as you left the "World War II" key in.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I warn you again to do not accuse other editor in a groundless way, because it is against wikietiquette (and apparently you have an agressive tone with me, you should have apoligized for your improper accusations). I don't see right now how we could make more precise the recent Polish territories, since if we wish to be more accurate, further separations may be possible, introducing new lines, etc. Yes, I made a revert, I acknowleged my mistake, and I partially reverted my edit. I could not edit properly? What key you are speaking of?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Ah I see what you probably speak of, well it has been part of the page earlier, you as well did not modify it...it will be corrected by the next edit.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Why only partial? According to you, Pomerania, southern East Prussia and Silesia were taken from Germany in both World Wars. Please, revert both of your reverts. How hard is it to read the table and see what you wrote? As to the territories - I meant the Region column, the detailed account of what modern administrative units said regions constitute now, not adding more lines. As to the key - notice how the table code has words such as "Both World Wars"; yes, they are invisible on the page, so I have no idea why they are there (you have seen it, good). About the tone - stop baiting, I won't bite.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * did you check the article I offered earlier? Do you seriously deny those territories - wholly or partially - did become part of Germany again? Anyway, in editing mode to see instantly sharp in a table format is not always easy, and yes, I found finally what you did refer of. No baits, but then please no bites!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Silesia, East Brandenburg, Warmia, Masuria, southern East Prussia, central and eastern parts of Pomerania were lost by Germany once - in the aftermath of WW2. Revert your edits, please. If you disagree with this, it must be with the wording of the names of the provinces, not with the clearly obvious intent of my original edit to split the two distinct categories of the lands inherited by Poland.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I made the revert, but read carefully the edit log, also like this is not accurate since there are some parts of the entities which have been lost twice.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Thanks for cooperation. Let's see - East Prussia/Masovia - 2% of its territory (Działdowo/Soldau) was indeed given to Poland outside the plebiscite; Pomerania - from what I understand, no part of the province was ceded (Pomerelia was another name for West Prussia). I'm adding Soldau.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * check the Province of Pomerania (1815–1945) article where itlinks, and read World War 1 section: Minor border adjustments followed, where 9,5 km2 of the province became Polish and 74 km2 of former West Prussia (parts of the former counties of Neustadt in Westpreußen and Karthaus)[46] were merged into the province.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * You are right. But how can it be included? Are the names of the towns in the ceded territory known?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Before that regarding your recent edit, (Soldau), you should have put before Masuria like most of or similar to indicate not for all of Masuria is true that it would be lost just once...on Pomerania, we could locate approx. which parts, since recently central and eastern parts are claimed to be lost only once...similarly to the earlier you may add x parts of Pomerania the line which is for the twice loss.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
 * 1. Mentioning Masuria and Warmia in itself is quite redundant - but I get why it may be there - to underline the historical regions. In the light of this, I would disagree that you need to add "most of" as 1) the paramount part about it is that the regions are mentioned at all; 2) Soldau is mentiond a mere line before, the context is clear.
 * 2. I must mention this now. The original author of the coloured legend, the now-indefinitely-blocked, might have had in mind the Imperial borders of 1937 when he added it in February 2017. I disregarded such a thought at first because then no territory would have been lost twice (Alsace, Eupen, Memel and Hultschin were not German in 1937). But now I think that he intended that category exclusively to denote the two kinds of the concessions to Poland. Of course, I still see my view as superior.
 * 3. I have added the changes of the border in Pomerania! History of Pomerania (1806–1933) has them!--Adûnâi (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2., 3. -> OK. 1. -> we should eliminate redundancies, that means we may add x part of y to specify (i.e. Warmia vs. Masuria). Anyhow, with Masuria you have to do something, since regardless one line before Soldau is mentioned, it does not change the fact Masuria regarding her whole territory included was not just lost once, so it is an apparent redundancy. If there is/you could by other instances use a part of,  most of, eastern etc., adequately it may be done also here, at this point we cannot ignore accuracy, and/or apply it arbitrarily. Still at first glance most of seems the most suitable, but solve it somehow!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC))
 * 2. I must mention this now. The original author of the coloured legend, the now-indefinitely-blocked, might have had in mind the Imperial borders of 1937 when he added it in February 2017. I disregarded such a thought at first because then no territory would have been lost twice (Alsace, Eupen, Memel and Hultschin were not German in 1937). But now I think that he intended that category exclusively to denote the two kinds of the concessions to Poland. Of course, I still see my view as superior.
 * 3. I have added the changes of the border in Pomerania! History of Pomerania (1806–1933) has them!--Adûnâi (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2., 3. -> OK. 1. -> we should eliminate redundancies, that means we may add x part of y to specify (i.e. Warmia vs. Masuria). Anyhow, with Masuria you have to do something, since regardless one line before Soldau is mentioned, it does not change the fact Masuria regarding her whole territory included was not just lost once, so it is an apparent redundancy. If there is/you could by other instances use a part of,  most of, eastern etc., adequately it may be done also here, at this point we cannot ignore accuracy, and/or apply it arbitrarily. Still at first glance most of seems the most suitable, but solve it somehow!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC))
 * 2., 3. -> OK. 1. -> we should eliminate redundancies, that means we may add x part of y to specify (i.e. Warmia vs. Masuria). Anyhow, with Masuria you have to do something, since regardless one line before Soldau is mentioned, it does not change the fact Masuria regarding her whole territory included was not just lost once, so it is an apparent redundancy. If there is/you could by other instances use a part of,  most of, eastern etc., adequately it may be done also here, at this point we cannot ignore accuracy, and/or apply it arbitrarily. Still at first glance most of seems the most suitable, but solve it somehow!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC))

See German version of this article for reference before undoing changes without discussion
I am a native German speaker and I grew up in Germany and when I first saw this article in its English version I realized that serious changes are needed.

First of all, “German Empire” is not the official name of a sovereign nation state that status belongs to the term “German Reich”

secondly, the lifespan of the German Reich did not end with the end of the monarchy in 1918. It is therefore incorrect to create the impression in the English version of this article that the so-called “German Empire” was the name of a sovereign nation state that existed from 1871-1918 – the sovereign nation state was the German Reich and it existed from 1871-1945. The term “German Empire” or its German equivalent “Deutsches Kaiserreich” only refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a constitutional monarchy with an emperor as its head of state.

Similarly, the term “Weimar Republic” refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a parliamentary democracy and the term “Nazi Germany” refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a totalitarian Nazi dictatorship – HOWEVER, in all respective English versions of the articles dealing with the “German Empire”, the “Weimar Republic” or “Nazi Germany” these terms are used and explained as if they were referring to three distinct SOVEREIGN NATION STATES and not three distinct PERIODS of the SAME sovereign nation state – the German Reich.

Also, it is very unprofessional and incorrect how the term “Germany” is used in all of these articles to refer to both the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany without distinction or further explanations. Statements like “The Reichsbank is Germany’s central bank” are incorrect – the Reichsbank was the central bank of the GERMAN REICH – whereas the central bank of the Federal Republic of Germany is the Bundesbank. It is important to distinguish between these two sovereign nation states within all articles. Both may have been called “Germany” informally by English speakers of the respective time, however it is not scientific nor encyclopedic to refer to all of them simply as “Germany” without any further explanations or references at all. The rules for common names in the TITLES of Wikipedia articles should not be used for the actual text of the article otherwise this entire project lacks the very basics of scientific work.

I am posting this comment here because all my edits to correct these misconceptions about three distinct sovereign nation states unconcernedly refered to as “German Empire”, “Weimar Republic/Germany” and “Nazi Germany” and the lack of sufficient distinction between two ACTUALLY DISTINCT sovereign nation states – the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany are immediately undone by various people without further talk or discussion.

If the English version of Wikipedia wants to be scientific and professional in covering the history of both the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany these changes will be necessary, however. For further reference please check out the respective German versions of the articles covering these topics which do not display either of the two misconceptions mentioned above. If needed Google translate certain sections and sources in order to convince yourself that I am not correcting the wording of the English articles out of sheer fun. I do it because the English version of Wikipedia is shockingly unscientific and imprecise in these matters.

Thank you very much!WikifreakTranslator (talk)
 * Incorrect. And, the German Wiki has no relevance here.50.111.8.107 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deutschlandlied (1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler).ogg

BRD on stormtrooper tactics
On this edit, reverted a change of  "stormtrooper tactics" to "infiltration tactics". I don't understand why. The tactics of stormtroopers are called infiltration tactics, per COMMONNAME. The object of the sentence is the tactics; isn't it more helpful to the reader to link the object of the sentence rather than its agent? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The original wording was "stormtrooper". The page stormtrooper is a disambiguation page, which prompted A D Monroe III to change the wording and link to "infiltration tactics". I'm pretty sure that the wording was based on the cited source, Herwig 1996, so I thought it would be better to retain the original wording and link to its closes match, Stormtroopers (Imperial Germany). Further, describing the Stoßtruppen tactics as 'infiltration' seems wrong; the article de:Sturmbataillon explicitly says they were the opposite, an overwhelming rapidly attacking force. But that's another discussion (I'm not interested in continuing). Bottom line: source uses 'stormtroopers', link should go to the closest match – WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page used one wording, and got changed. That's how WP works.
 * Yes, the change to a DAB got me here. That doesn't limit what I can edit.
 * "I'm pretty sure" is not viable argument in WP.
 * What a Sturmbataillon article says isn't relevant, per WP:CIRCULAR, especially from a completely different Wikipedia. Sturmbataillon is not the same as "stormtropper" anyway.
 * The source may indeed use the term 'stormtrooper'. (Or it may not; I don't have the book. If anyone does and can give the quote, please add it to the ref.)  But, again, the object of the sentence is their tactics, not their name.  And, yes, the tactics of these stormtroopers were indeed infiltration tactics, as stated and cited in that article.  Linking to the tactics just seems more helpful to the reader here.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pls Read
Hello everyone, I am a daily user of Wikipedia. I would like to tell everyone to not edit this page. I see this page being edited left and right. I would kindly like everyone to stop editing this page. Thank you for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.27.62 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want a static encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not for you. There are numerous printed ones for you.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
User:Mathglot the version you reverted to - along with the removed mismatched tag - (if there's been yet another edit in the meantime) seems fine with me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that quick heads-up about German Empire; I was scratching my head, because it looked like your desired changes were all in there after the roll back, and I couldn't figure out what else of yours I needed to replace. Something very screwy must have happened in my earlier edit.  Thanks again! I'll just do a dummy edit at the article to close the open "stand by", and let you take one more quick pass, to make sure it all looks all right. (If it does, you don't have to do anything.) Thanks for your forbearance, Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On further inspection I don't know where the edit conflict comes from since before my reverts the last version that affected the infobox was from April 3 (the excessive successors in the infobox were removed even earlier). Unless you were working from an earlier one. Anyway AOK now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harleywisdom32.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Name
The correct name was the German Realm. (Derscht (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC))
 * Citations please. 2.31.162.111 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Form of government
So for some reason German Empire is considered "absolute monarchy" in 1916-1918. What is the source for this claim? Every source tells that Emperor actually lost power in 1916 because Hinderburg and Luderdorff became de facto military dictators. Emperor retained all power he had before the war but he never gained "absolute" power over the country. You can find this information from for example Röhl´s Kaiser Wilhelm II 1859–1941: A Concise Life, 2014.

Also how is German Empire considered federal semi-constitutional monarchy (non parliamentary) when for example listed monarchies below are considered "parliamentary" even though their monarchs retained executive powers like German Emperor:

Russian Empire

Empire of Japan

Bourbon Restoration

Ottoman Empire

For example Russian Empire was far more autocratic than German Empire. This is one of the reasons why German social democrats supported the war effort against Russian empire. This information can be found from for example Strachan´s The First World War: A New History, 2014. So having Russian Empire as "parliamentary" and German Empire not is just false information.

I also want to point out that having a parliamentary system does not equal liberal democracy. For example Soviet union had a parliamentary system in it but obviously was not free or democratic. And German Empire was at best semi-democratic. 86.50.72.21 (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In order to change the existing consensual version of the information you dispute in the infobox, you will need to provide citations from WP:Reliable sources to support your views, not simply argumentation. Can you do that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering! I did provide two citations when I made the change. But I can provide few links here below.
 * https://www.britannica.com/place/German-Empire/Establishment-of-the-North-German-Confederation
 * https://books.google.fi/books?id=CjQzcn7Hp_AC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Röhl, J. (2014). The impotence of the Supreme War Lord at war. In Kaiser Wilhelm II: A Concise Life (pp. 172-173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139680394.035 86.50.72.21 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here´s one more source:
 * https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/284431/Article%20GH%20The%20Kaiser%20in%20the%20Federal%20State%20Oliver%20Haardt%20Abgabeversion.docx?sequence=1 86.50.72.21 (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gathered different sources to support my claim. If green light is given, I can change the information at the page and provide citations to all those sources. 86.50.72.21 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Military dictatorship
I would like to raise an issue about calling Germany a military dictatorship and the sources used to support the claim. Re the infobox: Wheeler-Bennett, on the page cited (14), states without support: "Rarely in modern times had military dictatorship achieved more unfettered licence. In the course of their rule Hindenburg and Ludendorff dragooned into submission the Kaiser, the Imperial Chancellor, the Cabinet and the Reichstag, the party chieftains, the captains of industry, and the leaders of the trade unions." No other references to Hindenburg or Ludendorff in the book support his sweeping claim. He is correct on page 14 that H & L were responsible for the fall of two chancellors and a foreign minister, but that doesn’t qualify Germany as a military dictatorship. In addition, my copy of Nemesis of Power has a 2004 introduction that warns of W-B's biases (pages xiv-xv) and states on p. xix, in contradiction to W-B, that "the Army, influential though it undoubtedly was, remained loyal to the State and to the appointed government throughout its pre-1933 history."

As for the second mention of a military dictatorship at the end of the 'Domestic affairs' section, the Lemar Cecil book cited in footnote 87 can be referring only to the "figurehead" part of the sentence, not the "dictatorship". The snippet view in Google books has only 6 references to "dictator" or "dictatorship", none of them pertinent to Ludendorff.

The additional research I've done in both English and German sources hasn’t turned up anything to support Germany being a military dictatorship in 1916–1918. It remained a (wartime) semi-constitutional monarchy with ministers and a functioning parliament that could and did at times stand up to the military. See e.g. Bethmann Hollweg, or the Reichstag Peace Resolution.

Thoughts? Other sources? GHStPaulMN (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I found a passage on p. 833 of Thomas Nipperdey's highly respected Deutsche Geschichte 1866–1918, Band II: Machstaat vor der Demokratie (German History 1866–1918, Volume II: Power State before Democracy) that I think throws the weight strongly in favor of removing the references to Germany as a military dictatorship in the final years of the war. The book hasn't been translated, so here's what DeepL came up with:
 * "Nevertheless, it is misleading to characterize the extraordinary power of the OHL and Ludendorff, especially after the fall of Bethmann Hollweg, simply as a military dictatorship. Certainly, he and Hindenburg had a position of power that could hardly be shaken. ... Their de facto position of power bordered on the dictatorial. But there was the civil Reich leadership, whose own views could never be completely eliminated; there were also non-OHL advisors to the Emperor, even in his cabinets and among the senior military officers. Above all, amazingly enough, the Reichstag rose to relative power. The need to pay attention to internal peace, the functioning relationship with the Majority Social Democrats, to the people's voices, to contain hunger riots and strikes, was clear to the civil Reich leadership as well as to the OHL. The more difficult the war situation became, the more the Reichstag ... gained power as an independent and self-willed institution. But the relationship between the Reichstag and the OHL remained ambivalent. Ludendorff's main attempt at a dictatorship at home through the Auxiliary Service Act to mobilize the population for total war failed."
 * I'll wait a couple of weeks for any responses, and if I havent heard anything by then to put the weight back on the side of calling it a dictatorship, I'll go ahead and remove the 2 references in this article and one in Stab-in-the-back Myth. Sound reasonable? GHStPaulMN (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that the first time I saw the Hindenberg/Ludendorff-controlled German Empire called a "military dictatorship" I was quite surprised, because I had never thought of it in that way before, but since then almost every book I've read on the subject of German in World War I has said the same thing. I can plow through my library and post examples if you insist, but I assure you that this is the case, and that experts refer to it in that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Structure
Over the last year, this article has become a horrific mess with a large "history" section, in which the sections do not make very much sense to a reader. A vast number of things are lumped together in this section. As far as I can see this structure has never been discussed and the underlying problem is that everything about the German Empire is, in some sense, "History".

Compare the neat structure from a year ago, in which "history" was divided into "Background", "Bismarck Era," "Year of the Three Emperors," "Wilhelmine Era" and "World War I." Somehow, totally without discussion, the more thematic sections ("Economy" "Social issues" etc) have been promoted to their own sections, even though (for example) the Kulturkampf is entirely an event of the Bismarck era. "World War I" is apparently no longer "History" at all. At worst, (A) I would like the article to return to this structure, which is at least clearer than the current.

Preferably (B), I'd like to see some of the thematic sections separated out from "History" and promoted to top level sections of their own, as is done for Russian Empire and other historical countries. At the moment these sections often expect the reader to know about the post-Bismarck history of the Empire before the reader has reached it (e.g. economy) or discuss only events under Bismarck despite ostensibly being about the whole empire (e.g. "Social reform". The most obvious candidates for this are "economy" and "infrastructure," perhaps also "social issues". "Law" might move to be part of "Constitution". The result might bring us closer to the neat structure of the de.wiki article (a good article) which has a nice overview of various thematic aspects, dispenses with the "History" section altogether (since it is all history) and then gives a clear narrative in sections on "Bismarck Era," "Year of the Three Emperors," "Wilhelmine Era" and "World War I."

(Additional point: There are several vestigial sections. "Military" is currently too short and in a strange place, wedged between two legacy sections. "Consolidation" is a five sentence section that appears to assume a setting shortly after unification and is in fact largely about foreign policy, but is oddly wedged between "economy" and "social issues." The initial discussion of colonies under Bismarck is extremely short, while that under Wilhelm is very long. There is no balance here.) Furius (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean that's the trade off in wikipedia. Legitimacy and reach in exchange for the loss of control that comes with having numerous editors, all you can do is add the page to the watchlist and try to shape the page how you think it should be - which can occassionally require adding material to create balance.
 * This sounds like a tension between two forms: timeline based vs topic based, which I've seen in a lot of plae. Timelime formats provide nice consistent way of ordering that avoids WP:OR and too much thought, and a more topic-based article that requires better sourcing to avoid the WP:OR that can come with selecting certain things from history, but allow people to understand the period "at a glance" and generalize it to other areas.
 * I don't really know what the solution to this is. I think it tends to be "a bit of both but try to decide which his best and keep things seperate". Selling the timeline format a little - it is less inclines to bias and disagreement and can be useful for people trying to apply their own analysis to a period, being half way between interpretation and source material Talpedia (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article contains the "timeline" and "topic" material regardless. For example, basically all the material on the economic history of the German Empire appears in the one "economy" section - it is just appears randomly halfway through the "timeline". Furius (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article contains the "timeline" and "topic" material regardless. For example, basically all the material on the economic history of the German Empire appears in the one "economy" section - it is just appears randomly halfway through the "timeline". Furius (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia editors, respond to request.
In the Infobox, on the photo of The German Empire and its occupied territories in September 1918. The German Empire did not occupy the whole of Finland, only a tiny portion in the South. This needs to be fixed. Aaron106 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Germany supported Finland (Finnish Whites) during the Finnish Civil War, and German military personnel were in Finland, but it was an independent occurrence related to World War I. I do get your point about the map being misleading though, but I think someone has to go into an editing software and change the image with good reason. I suggest taking this to RfC. Vamsi20 (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

3,7km²- 6km² Size
The German Empire with Colonies was 3,7km² large and not 1,7km². You must correct the conquests of eastern europe In WW1 to, they mostly Controlled 2,5km² on the eastern front + mostly Belgium and little path of north France. So we are on 6,2km² overall but We don't have to mixed them up, but please correct them anyway AsuraZC (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The dates are wrong, may have been vandalized en-mass by AI
The dates in this article are wrong some likely by over a century claiming some of these things happened as early as 2018.

It's possible someone used an AI to vandalize this article by flipping all the dates to +100 years and then +/- some additional years as well possibly. There could be other parts of the article which have also been vandalized.

I suggest this article needs an AI restoration with human approved changes and or or reset to a cold storage copy. 64.110.223.142 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mentioning AI is a bit hyperbolic; this is just regular old human vandalism, and can be solved by a regular old human revert. :) Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the sentence "...[Germany] managed to build the third-largest colonial empire at the time, after the British and the French ones."
"Third-largest"? What about the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and American colonial empires? 32.132.12.210 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that says that the empires of those countries were larger than that of Germany? Because the sentence you cite is supported by a reference to a book published by Oxford University Press. If you've got a source, cite it here, and then we can talk about possibly adjusting the sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Chatbot BARD, the 5 largest colonial empires where the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Portuguese Empire. 32.132.12.210 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Chatbots are not reliable sources; in fact, given their tendency to hallucinate, they are about as far from a reliable source as one can get.
 * Also, keep in mind the phrase "at the time"; while other empires were bigger at *some* point in history, the time period specified is the 1880s, where many of the older empires were already in decline. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that Germany became unified only ten years before the 1880s, can it be possible that a recently unified country could have large colonial holdings compared to its rivals who had a headstart of centuries? 32.132.12.210 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ...yes? It's not like Germany appeared out of nowhere; just because the German states hadn't been unified yet doesn't mean they didn't exist, or weren't already busily colonizing the rest of the world. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the article. The astonishingly quick growth of the empire is specifically commented upon. Furius (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to "German Colonialism: A Short History" published by Cambridge University Press:
 * - In the late 1890s, smaller possession in East Asia (Shandong province in China) and the Pacific (Samoa, New Guinea, and a number of Pacific Islands) were added. After those of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, this was the fourth largest empire at the time.
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/german-colonialism/introduction/DAC793B9B6610B6A8BC7A4D375A74C6A 32.132.12.210 (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)