Talk:German Reich/Archive 1

Translation
Can't Deutsches Reich also be translated as German Empire and German State, depending on the political situation (for instance, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany were all Deutsches Reich, although Nazi Germany was unofficially Großdeutsches Reich, after the Anschluss with Austria) Ameise -- chat 07:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1943, "Großdeutsches Reich" became the official name of Germany, too. --Orangerider 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the German word Imperium (Empire) versus Reich? Germans themselves refer to the British Empire using the term „Britisches Imperium“.  Has this question been addressed?


 * 71.245.5.103 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been semi-addressed elsewhere. While that word is used in German to describe some other states or empires, Germany did not use the word Imperium to describe any part of the German Reich. The word Kaiserreich was unofficially used during the time of the German Empire (1871-1918). For the Holy Roman Empire, the word Imperium was used only in Latin, with Reich used in German. - 52 Pickup 09:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not used to the expression "Britisches Imperium". At least in modern German language it's always called "British/das britische Empire" or simply "Das Empire".
 * The German/Latin word "Imperium" is more often used for the ancient Roman Empire, seldom if ever for any German empire.--MacX85 12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Deutsches Reich still existed after 1945
As I promised heres the full quote:

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht stellte am 31. Juli 1973 bei der Überprüfung des Grundlagenvertrags mit der DDR fest (2 BvF 1/73):


 * Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort, besitzt nach wie vor Rechtsfähigkeit, ist allerdings als Gesamtstaat mangels Organisation, insbesondere mangels institutionalisierter Organe selbst nicht handlungsfähig.
 * Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert […]. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht „Rechtsnachfolger“ des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat „Deutsches Reich“, – in bezug auf seine räumliche Ausdehnung allerdings „teilidentisch“, so daß insoweit die Identität keine Ausschließlichkeit beansprucht. […] Sie beschränkt staatsrechtlich ihre Hoheitsgewalt auf den „Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes“

I like Burke&#39;s Peerage 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not going to translate the whole quote but try to explain what the Bundesverfassungsgericht meant to say. "Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht „Rechtsnachfolger“ des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat „Deutsches Reich“" means: "The Federal Republic of Germany is not the 'legal successor' of the German Empire, but identical with the state 'Deutsches Reich'" (just a new name for an old country). The next part of the sentence means that as the territory of the German Empire and the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany are not the same, the identity as a state can only be partial and not exclusive (as the West German constitution wasn't in effect in East Germany and the former German territories). The conclusion the court drew was that the (East German) territories of the German Empire outside of the Federal Republic of Germany can not be seen as foreign soil (that's why they couldn't admit that the German Empire was gone).
 * So in this sense after the Reunification of West and East Germany and the waiver of the old German territories in Poland, Russia and elsewhere the identity between the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany has been fully established. 217.83.108.126 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it means that after the defeat of Germany in World War II "The German Reich still existed as a legal entity, but that it had no institutional organs of a state. With the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany a new West German state was not created, but as a part of Germany with state organs again ... Thus the FRG is not a legal successor to the German Reich but the same state with jurisdiction limtied to the area where the Basic Law applies."


 * However Germany was not fully sovereign at that time, so and the semantics of whether Germany was still under the sovereignty of the former German state or under that of the Four Powers is open to debate. I think you would have to come up with an example of a four power statement which recognised that the German Reich still existed and that the FRG was a legitimate expression of that state to confirm a position taken by an entity which was part of the FRG and making the statement during Ostpolitik. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no former state because Germany exists since the constitution of the North German Confederation in 1867 as an international legal personality, and since 1871 as an nation state. That means Germany is identical the very same state according to international law and under constitutional law. --Orangerider 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A full English translation of the judgement by the BVerfG can be found here - 52 Pickup 06:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

--Yikrazuul 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I contradict. This is only a hypothesis. 1950 the Federal Republik of Germany was totally new (new instituion, parites,...). Some people here in Wiki try to have some nice arguments, that the old "German Empire" still exists on the paper. But even in 1990, with the contract of Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany there was neve mentionend the old realm - only the FR of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yikrazuul (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Own article
German Reich must not redirect to German Empire because German Empire only is about Germany in 1871-1918. Germany as a nation state exists since 1871 until today. --Orangerider 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Reich
There is an increasing use of the word realm to describe the Deutsches Reich and there is the fact that while empire has its own literal translation in German, Kaiserreich. The english word "realm" has no other translation in German other than reich, and reich is used like realm, to describe a variety of types of nations, i.e. a konigreich, means a kingdom not a King's Empire, while King's Realm is more possible. Opponents to using the word "realm" note the fact that reich is used to describe many empires. Supporters of the translation to realm, like me, counter that by pointing out that it is possible that Germans describe many empires as realms, unless they are consistent literal empires with emperors, in which they are called a kaiserreich, or that reich may be used as a shortened down version of kaiserreich.--R-41 10:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is not our place to decide upon translations in this way - that is OR - 52 Pickup 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, it should be "Reich" like "German Reich". Let's leave it at that. --Orangerider 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In case of Germany I would like to translate "Reich" with "Empire" since it derives from the (Holy) Roman Empire. While the modern state clearly doesn't stand in the medieval tradition, the name does. Translating "Reich" with "Reich" is confusing.--MacX85 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Empire" is WP:OR! There's no source for that term. --Orangerider 14:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to clean up this whole naming mess
Instead of a scattered debate and an impending edit war over various articles (e.g. Talk:Nazi Germany), here is yet another attempt to clean up this mess while trying to keep a cool head. I have no biases either way in the matter, I just want to get the facts established so we can all get on with other things.

As I see it, there are a number of problems here:


 * 1) The fact that it is standard to break up the Deutsches Reich (1871-1945, or till 1943 if you include the name change to Großdeutsches Reich) into 3 periods, even though it is all the one country: the differences are determined by a change in government type (monarchy to democratic republic to dictatorship). You could even put in a 4th period (1918-19 revolutionary period) if you like.
 * 2) There is a contention that the translation between German and English must be 1-to-1, which is of course false. It is not necessary to have one word for Kaiserreich and one for Reich. Sure, Reich can mean "empire", but it doesn't mean JUST "empire". A Kaiserreich is simply something ruled by an emperor, and that word was never used officially (see The 1871 constitution and The 1919 constitution)
 * 3) The term "German Empire" is used in English just to describe the 1871-1918 period, although the German name "Deutsches Reich" covers the entire 1871-1945/3 period - and this is probably what is causing the confusion.

Now, onto to taking care of these problems

'''"Realm" is wrong. Simple.''' For 1918-1945, the term "German Reich" is the most commonly used in English, without translation of Reich (and, unlike many involved in this current debate, I'm a native English speaker). By reading the recent citations made to Time magazine articles, there is nothing to say that "Realm" is the official name. The term "British realm" has been used a lot over time, but does that mean that that is the official name for the UK or the British Empire/Commonwealth? Of course not.

An official document or statement of some sort - NOT a magazine article - is needed to sort out the matter. And here is such an official document:, the text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (AKA Pact of Paris) from 1928. The opening reads:

See? The official name is "German Reich" without translation. And from looking through some other documents, the term "German Reich" is used far far more than "German Realm" for the 1918-1945 period, and is always used in official matters. Ende. So please stop adding the "German Realm" translation - it is unnecessary, misleading and borders on original research.

Article names A minor issue is what should all of the articles be called. Names such as "Weimar Republic" or "Nazi Germany" are by no means official, they simply describe the period. Perhaps the current German Empire article should be renamed to Imperial Germany, while this page (Deutsches Reich) be renamed to "German Empire" if that would help clarify matters.

So that's my initial thoughts on the matter. Now let's put the matter to bed so we can get on with things. - 52 Pickup 20:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement. But this article shouldn't be renamed to "German Empire" because that would be also false. Its name must be "Deutsches Reich" or "German Reich".


 * Conclusion:
 * "German Reich" ("Deutsches Reich" was from 1871 until 1945 the official state name of Germany):
 * 1871-1918: "German Empire" or "Imperial Germany"
 * 1919-1933: "Weimar Republic"
 * 1933-1945: "German Reich at Nazi period" or "Third Reich" or "Nazi Germany" (latter can remain, but it's not neutral)
 * 1943-1945: "Great German Reich" ("Großdeutsches Reich" became official state name)
 * "Germany as a whole" (given name by Allies):
 * 1945-1949: "Germany 1945-1949" or "Occupied Germany"
 * 1949-1990: "Federal Republic of Germany" or "West Germany" (or "FRG")
 * 1949-1990: "German Democratic Republic" or "East Germany" (or "GDR")
 * "Germany":
 * 1990-now : "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany" (from 1990, also official state (short) name)
 * 1990-now : "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany" (from 1990, also official state (short) name)


 * --Orangerider 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. At the very least, this article should be moved to an English name, so "German Reich" would be the best choice. I just tried to do it, but it looks like an admin is needed to reverse the direction of a redirect. - 52 Pickup 07:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1871-1918 should be "German Empire" or "Wilhelmine Germany"; probably the first as more common. "Imperial Germany" is ambiguous: Es gibt nur ein Kaiserstadt/ und das heisst Wien, as the song says.
 * The Republic was declared in November 1918. That it did not acquire a constitution or a name immediately is secondary. Weimar Republic is English usage.
 * Third Reich is probably most common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The republic was proclaimed in 1918, that's right. But the Weimar Republic began officially on August 11, 1919, when the "Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs" was to set in force. Therefore, the formly date (in an encyclopedia) is 1919. --Orangerider 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion because there is a similar inconsistent use throughout the WW2 articles on use of name Germany --Mrg3105 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

See above topic for reasoning. - 52 Pickup 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I have no problem with Reich; and Deutsches and German are translations of each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. We use would normally use 'German' rather than 'Deutches' in English, but would use 'Reich' as 'Reich'. – Axman (☏) 08:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Ditto (like my previous speaker). --Orangerider 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Why go half-assed and translate half of the title? Deutsches Reich is much more common. Reginmund 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support See discussion. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A correct translation would be German Impire, but Deutsches Reich works as well, as it also includes the "Weimarer Republik". -- PhJ 09:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. A precise translation would be "German Realm" and a more general one would be "German Empire" but, for better or worse, "German Reich" is what's typically used. —   AjaxSmack     03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Why go half-assed and translate half of the title? Deutsches Reich is much more common. Reginmund 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you come to that conclusion: Third Reich and German Reich are common terms in English and as the article makes clear are also used in at least on official document:
 * about 32,700 English pages for "Deutsches-Reich" -German-Reich -wikipedia.
 * about 196,000 English pages for "German Reich" -Deutsches-Reich -wikipedia.
 * Its literal meaning in English is "German Empire", however in official practice it is usually only part-translated as "German Reich" (Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928: use of "German Reich" (in place of an accurate translation) as an appellation for Germany in an official document)

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

@PhJ: Have you ever read the discussion overhead about "German Reich" and its use in an official way? Please no WP:OR, therefore German Reich is the solely correct term in English.

There are ONLY two possibilities (that we have to decide about) for Germany's official name in its period from 1871 until 1945: Deutsches Reich (the native one) or German Reich (the one and only English term). --Orangerider 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert and Continuity
I have some questions about this part of the article:
 * The view, however, is contested by most other countries of the world. The three Western Allies, the Soviet Union and most other Western countries regarded the German Reich was still one nation, but it was not synonymous with either the West or East German state, but rather, the two states in collective. Other countries tended to regard the German Reich to have been divided into two states. As of 1974, East Germany's official stance is the GDR was a new state that is German in nature but not a successor state to the German Reich, and there were now two German states that were different nations. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany was not made without the agreemend of at least the western allied forces. Also the FRG was held responsible for reparation after the war, while the GDR denied any legal responsibility for the German Reich.

Are there sources, especially about the idea that "most other countries" do so? And: GDR never called itself a succesor of the Reich, also not before 1974. And: The Federal Republic held responsible makes sense within the theory of continuity.--Ziko (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The GDR claimed very well that it would be a successor of the German Reich, see http://www.krr-faq.net/ident.php and http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv077137.html --Orangerider (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you were to ask the government of, for example, India, today what their view of Germany when that country was divided was, their diplomatic position would be Germany as a nation was divided into two and neither West nor East Germany on their own would be a complete successor to the German Reich. --JNZ (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I think the IPA for "German Reich" [/ˈdʒɜrmən ˈraɪx/] is wrong. This "x" in the English IPA is given as "ugh, loch, Chanukah" which is not the German pronunciation... Unfortunately I do not find the proper phoneme in the English IPA. In the German IPA it's crypted as ç and the examples are: German: ich; English: hue... On the other hand, English speakers use to pronounce Reich like "rike" which is also a possible way...--MacX85 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)--MacX85 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is an "English IPA", why would it have its own symbol for /ç/? —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To pronounce words right?--MacX85 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an English pronunciation should be given, which would be /ˈraɪk/, since "German Reich" isn't a German term, but an English one. -- megA (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reich as Realm
The talk over in "Nazi Germany" is about translating "Reich" as "Realm" So I looked this article. The source for the translation is "Harper's Magazine" — from volume 63, which is about 1883. 125 years old and going back to the Kaiserreich. Now that is goofy. Bytwerk (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * see: Reich and Drittes Reich - Reich (Territorium) - Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung) --IIIraute (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how any of that advances the argument that the first thing people should see on the upper right-hand corner of the "Nazi Germany" page in large letters is "Greater German Realm." The English "Reich" page says that "it is to some degree comparable in meaning" to realm.  And in some contexts it is.  But not in this one.  It would be a fine translation were one talking about, say "Reich der Ideen."  The German Wikipedia articles hardly support an English translation as "realm" in this context. The purpose of the info is to help readers understand the topic better, and leading them on a linguistic pursuit of antecedents is hardly likely to help. Bytwerk (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the "talk page" for German Reich. Apart from that you obviously do not have a comprehensive understanding of the German language, as otherwise you would know that your translation regarding this context is rather wrong. It is more to set equal with (for example): Eastern Realm - Reich des Ostens or Realm of Darkness - Reich der Finsternis (place bound, rather than abstract). Apart from that I never advocated the direct "Reich" equals "realm" translation! pease see Nazi Germany talk page - thank you --IIIraute (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My, my. My German is sufficient to teach at a German university.  It is sufficient to have a web site of German translations used by scholars around the world.  I suspect if we compare credentials you will come out looking rather silly. Anyone may determine my credibility by a quick web search.  Care to tell us what your qualifications are?  Kindly explain why my translation is to your mind wrong rather than resort to ad hominem. Bytwerk (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...awkward comment - however, please comply with WP:NOR - thanks.--IIIraute (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I decided that the discussion was not productive and removed my remark above, but IIIraute prefers to keep it there. As he wishes. Bytwerk (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree - somehow embarrassing, but first think - then edit, as well as WP:NOR → WP:TPG.--IIIraute (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...sorry, wrong shortcut. please see: WP:TPG, my mistake!--IIIraute (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And does it apply to you as well? My comment above was a tad snide, hence my preference to remove it.  However, I think you have drifted into that territory yourself. Bytwerk (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As to NOR, kindly explain why that is relevant. Bytwerk (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought, you were referring to "your translation" earlier, weren't you? → WP:NOR. --IIIraute (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again I fail to understand you. I've not added my translations to Wikipedia for the obvious reason, although many other editors have.  Under NOR, translations are not OR anyway. Kindly explain what you think is amiss. Bytwerk (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In this case "your" translation would fall under WP:NOR, so does other work you have done as a historian.--IIIraute (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If I added it to an article, which I have not done. I still fail to understand.  Bytwerk (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...because you were asking me to explain why "my translation is to your mind wrong rather than resort to ad hominem". Because I does not matter how you would translate the term → that's WP:NOR. --IIIraute (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Last comment from me, since this could go on forever and is of interest to no one but the two of us. It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you think I am doing, since you are stating that my translation is wrong and you know the right one.  See your comment above: "Apart from that you obviously do not have a comprehensive understanding of the German language, as otherwise you would know that your translation regarding this context is rather wrong. It is more to set equal with (for example):  Eastern Realm - Reich des Ostens or Realm of Darkness - Reich der Finsternis (place bound, rather than abstract)."  So have the last word and we can both turn our attentions to more productive uses.  Bytwerk (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I am not, as I was only replying to your WP:NOR statement: "And in some contexts it is. But not in this one.  It would be a fine translation were one talking about, say "Reich der Ideen."'", whereas I did provide you with the following, sourced, WP articles earlier: Reich and Drittes Reich - Reich (Territorium) - Drittes Reich (Begriffsklärung).--IIIraute (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms
I think the displayed coat of arms is misleading… It is the coat of arms of the Weimar Republic (lasting only 14 years) and of the FRG since 1950 as the description of the file says. Actually it is the coat of arms in the shape in which it is used now. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland

In the German Wikipedia the following images are used. Kaiserreich: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wappen_Deutsches_Reich_-_Reichsadler_1889.svg Weimarer Republik: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wappen_Deutsches_Reich_%28Weimarer_Republik%29.svg Nationalsolzialismus: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichsadler_der_Deutsches_Reich_%281933%E2%80%931945%29.svg --79.250.8.22 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Coherency
"There were three periods in the history of the Reich:


 * 1) First Reich (Erste Reich): Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich) 962–1806 later Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation), also called Old Empire (Altes Reich)
 * 2) Second Reich (Zweite Reich): German Empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich) 1871–1918
 * 3) Third Reich (Drittes Reich): German Reich (Deutsches Reich) 1933-1943 later Greater German Reich (Großdeutsches Reich) 1943-1945
 * 4) Fourth Reich (Viertes Reich): Fourth Reich is a theoretical future German empire that is the successor to Third Reich (1933-1945).

The 1918–1933 Weimar period, which is also called German Reich is ignored and denounced by the Nazis as a historical aberration, contemptuously referring to it as "the System"."

I think the text above does not qualify as coherent reading. First it takes for granted there were those particular "reich periods" (plus the random extra one...). Later, the text implies the 962-1806//1871-1918//1933-1945 scheme (ignoring the Weimar Republic) is a POVish nazi labeling. I suggest complete rephrasing or removal from the lead section.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

DePRODded
The PROD nomination stated that "The hybrid term German Reich is a disputable term with missing scientific background, or even unknown. Vice versa Third Reich, the term German Reich is very probably an invention (OR) by WP editors. The given sources do not jutify the usage of this hybrid, invented term and could lead to many misunderstandings and confusion." The OR part is clearly not the case, as evidenced by a couple of refs here using the term. Heck, even on this very talk page the issue of Deutsches/German Reich is discussed. Whether the term is "hybrid" or "invented" (not by editors, obviously) is irrelevant if it's a term that is actually in use – and some basic googling quite strongly suggests it is. Conversely, by what metric is the term "disputable" might be helpful in deciding what to do. All things considered it doesn't strike me as a clearly uncontroversial deletion, hence the objection/dePROD.

Certainly the article has its problems, and I actually agree with some of the concerns about original research or unsourced parts of it. However, I feel it would be helpful to point out specific issues or sections rather than simply slap a template on the whole thing. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * if you're going to put a bunch of maintenance tags on an article, could you please add some rationale to the talk page so other editors know what specific issues you see in the article? clpo13(talk) 16:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed; there is certainly much - especially in the section on 'Reich and Empire' that is tendentious and argumentative. Most of the rest looks OK to me; though it needs tying down to authoritative publications.  Might I suggest Kay Hailbronner "Legal aspects of the Unification of the Two German States"; and also "The Constitutional Law of German Unification" and "The Imperfect Union" - both by Peter E Quint?  All of these include discussion of the status of the 'German Reich' in the context of the division of Germany during the period of Allied Occupation and the Cold War; and the definitive determination of the unity and identity of the Berlin Republic with the German Reich following the Final Treaty. TomHennell (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinion of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court
Should something be brought in to this article to discuss the opinion of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court that Deutsches Reich, theoretically, still exists? See the German article on Deutsches Reich--Dub8lad1 23:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite interested in this, but my German is rusty... can you translate Deutsches Reich for me? Ameise -- chat 07:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Federal Republic of Germany is under constitutional law and according to the international law personality the very same to the German Reich and therefore it is identical with the German Reich. --Orangerider 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509201753/http://www.yale.edu:80/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Informally, this state was also known simply as Germany.
Currently the article states "Informally, this nation was also known simply as Germany". The nation consists of Germans who inhabit the country of Germany, this is not informal usage. What is informal is to refer to the state as Germany. So the sentence is better as "Informally, this state was also known simply as Germany". -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

According to THIS ARTICLE, the name doesn't translate "literally" as German Empire
The article contradicts itself, claiming that "Reich" literally means "empire", but uses as its reference a magazine which flatly states that "Reich" does not literally connote an empire. I'm changing the lead. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you're right.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Division into "First Reich," "Second Reich," and "Third Reich"
The lead currently divides three historical periods (omitting the Weimar Republic, despite the fact that the state was called Deutsches Reich at that time) into the "First Reich," the "Second Reich," and the "Third Reich." This was how these periods were seen in Nazi propaganda, but I'm unhappy with the article merely accepting the Nazi view on that issue in such an uncritical way in the lead section and using the Nazi terms as the primary terms for these historical periods, and omitting the Weimar Republic (as seen in the sentence "There were three periods in the history of the Reich"). This should be discussed in a more nuanced way.

Also, the term "First Reich" isn't really a very common name of the Holy Roman Empire, especially not in English. In German I believe "Old Reich" was by and large a much more common term than "First Reich," which is simply a Nazi propaganda term. --Tataral (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This was not a Nazi classification. From Nazi Germany:


 * Common English terms are "Nazi Germany" and "Third Reich". The latter, adopted by Nazi propaganda, was first used in a 1923 book by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. The book counted the Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) as the first Reich and the German Empire (1871–1918) as the second. The Nazis used it to legitimize their regime as a successor state. After they seized power, Nazi propaganda retroactively referred to the Weimar Republic as the Zwischenreich ("Interim Reich").


 * AFAIK, this is still a common popular way to classify the "Reichs". Keep in mind that democracy, i.e. the Weimar Republic, was somewhat forced on Germany after monarchies collapsed. It suffered instability and economic problems, hence the lack of support of calling it a "Reich" like the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire or Nazi Germany, which all were powerful states.Ernio48 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of the fact that the Nazis didn't originally propose this terminology, but they were the ones who popularized it/used it widely. A lot of old monarchies collapsed during/after WWI, but this wasn't really forced on Germany by any foreign power, but something the Germans did themselves, partially as a result of the incompetence of their emperor and the military regime that came into power during the war, and they ended up with a very moderate political system that did enjoy significant support (among social democrats, liberals and other centrists) and that wasn't really particularly harsh to old elites either. Germany was certainly widely called a Reich during the Weimar Republic; Deutsches Reich was the country's official name, and they had organizations such as Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold, a major organisation that was supportive of the Weimar Republic. Germany was a reasonably powerful state during the Weimar Republic; for example it became the fifth permanent member of the Council of the League of Nations in the 1920s. --Tataral (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tararal here. The classification First/Second/Third Reich (excludiding the Weimar Republic; corresponds to a narrative promoted by the Nazis; and is maintained primarily by those acadmemics who focus on the Nazi period.  In post-war German discourse; the term 'German Reich' simply refers to the pre-war German state and national territory (sometimes specified as corresponding to the boundaries as at December 1937). Consequently it includes the period of a united Germany from 1871 to 1937,  and applies equally to the Imperial, Weimar and Nazi regimes.  But it is not commonly applied to Germany before 1871 - and certainly not (in official documents) to the Holy Roman Empire. In my view, the Nazi narrative should be a distinct para; but that usage should not form the primary presentation of the term's usage in the lead para. TomHennell (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with that. Perhaps something along the lines of
 * The history of the nation-state known as the German Reich is commonly divided into three periods:
 * German Empire
 * Weimar Republic
 * Nazi Germany


 * The Nazi regime later called itself the "Third Reich," counting the Holy Roman Empire as the first and the 1871 German Empire as the second, and ignoring the Weimar Republic.
 * I think the rest of the discussion of the term "Third Reich" and the Nazi narrative belongs below in an appropriate section and not in the lead section. --Tataral (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with the suggestion. TomHennell (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Further to this; there is a good short discussion of the origin of the term "German Reich" in Richard J Evans "The Coming of the Third Reich" pages 6-7. He notes that the choice of the term "German Reich" for the new German state established in 1871 carried deliberate echoes of the Holy Roman Empire (as did the choice of the title 'Kaiser' for its ruler). He also notes that contemporary commentators played up this parallel (though Bismark himself strongly deprecated this); resulting in the belated entry by Imperial Germany into the 'scramble for Africa' and the colonial game - Evans also picks out continuities between German Imperial colonialist policies against Africans, and the policies of the Third Reich against Jews and Slavs.    But the general point is that 'German Reich' was essentially a new coinage in 1871 as the name for a nation state; but one that struck a chord, in that it linked into an idea of German destiny as a predominant European power that both the Weimar Republic and the Nazis found attractive (even after the Imperial regime had collapsed in ignominy).  What Evans does not discuss is the post-WWII usage of  'German Reich' to stand for the 'overall German state' that was being maintained in a state of suspension from 1949 to 1990, while 'Germany as a whole' (to use an alternative nominacluture) remained fractured in two. TomHennell (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on German Reich. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218151523/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/ger01.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/ger01.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)