Talk:German reunification

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Braedenlueken.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Succession of states
I expected some link to Succession of states i this context, but there isn't. Could you work one in? --Error (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When did Northern East Prussia cease being part of the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany?
Northern East Prussia (plus other nearby areas) became part of Germany in 1871, when the country of Germany was born. There was a German university in the largest city, and a famous German philosopher who was from that area. Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in that city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.243.123 (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Berlin urban planning: Own article or section elsewhere?
Hi everyone, the section "Reunified Berlin from an urban planning perspective" is rather unrelated to this larger field of the German reunification. It shouldn't have a place in this article, while of course it can be linked. Should it get an own article, or integrated into something like Urban planning in Berlin (compare Urban planning in Singapore)? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Foreign support and opposition — ambiguous paragraph.
The following is ambiguous:

"A poll of four countries in January 1990 found that a majority of surveyed Americans and French supported reunification, while British and Poles were more divided. 69% of Poles and 50% of French and British stated that they worried about a reunified Germany becoming 'the dominant power in Europe'."

"A majority of Americans and French" and "50% of French and British" surely contradict oneanother? -- Fursday 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the contradiction. Some French people supported re-unification but were worried. --Boson (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ireland´s support for German Unification
I don´t why some guy named Dennis has deleted the following:

Ireland´s Taoiseach, Charles Haughey supported German Reunification and he took advantage of Ireland´s presidency of the European Economic Community by calling for an extraordinary European summit for Dublin in April 1990 to calm fears held by fellow members of the EEC. (See here and here and here and here) Haughey saw similarities between Ireland and Germany and cited during a debate in the Dáil "I have expressed a personal view that coming as we do from a country which is also divided many of would have sympathy with any wish of the people of the two German States for unification".(see here)

This seems to be an important subject, the article as it is seems to indicate no-one in Europe supported German Unification when in fact there were and since Ireland held the Presidency of the EEC, then all the more reason why it should be there. I have even provided the relevant documents supporting it, which are from valid sources, such as the EU and included a pdf as seen here

http://aei.pitt.edu/1397/1/Dublin_april_1990.pdf http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-90-1_en.htm?locale=en http://www.irishtimes.com/news/germany-will-never-forget-ireland-s-help-1.658399 http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/how_the_eu_works/presidency/index_en.htm http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1989/12/13/00007.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2580:2480:2841:5D8F:2E52:6B59 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

'invitation to Austria to join'
Under Process of reunification --> international effects paragraph two, the article mentions "Article 23 was rewritten and it can still be understood as an invitation to others (e.g. Austria) to join,". Considering that Article 23 is now the 'Europa-Artikel' and that I can find no reference for this piece of information, how can this be true? Hentheden (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Austria is not invited to join. Vienna Congress and the promise od diveided powers, no Großdeutsches Reich and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.27.183 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition Inquiry - Welfare State
Hi - I am new to wikipedia and am preparing to add integral information about the Welfare System in section 3.2. This is a test. DanishKringle (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Testing. Here are a few of the sources I will be using:
 * Green, Simon, et. al. The Politics of the New Germany. London and New York: 2012. Print.


 * Padgett, Stephen, et. al. Developments in German Politics. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. 2012. Print.
 * DanishKringle (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Naming
Although the name of the event in German is interesting, as this is an encyclopaedia in English it would be more pertinent to discuss the usage in English both during the process and common usage today. By this I mean did the English language press or diplomats from the English speaking countries ever call it unification rather than unification and if so who decided what. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Despite planning efforts, significant disparity between East and West remain."
More like because of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.42 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German reunification. 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/20110718224237/http://www.das-parlament.de/2009/18-19/Beilage/004.html to http://www.das-parlament.de/2009/18-19/Beilage/004.html
 * Added tag to http://timpani.globescope.com/relaunch/info/publications/infocus/15yrs_Reunification/index.html

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) 02:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on German reunification. 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/20130516041356/http://test.magazin-deutschland.de/en/artikel-en/article/article/merkel-to-mark-20th-anniversary-of-german-reunification-treaty.html to http://test.magazin-deutschland.de/en/artikel-en/article/article/merkel-to-mark-20th-anniversary-of-german-reunification-treaty.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104100738/http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/London+Paris+were+shocked+German+reunification/2168902/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/London+Paris+were+shocked+German+reunification/2168902/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707144725/http://www.annistonstar.com/pages/full_story/push?article-After+the+fall-+20+years+ago+this+week-+the+crumbling+of+the+Berlin+Wall+began+an+empire-s+end%20&id=4380443-After+the+fall-+20+years+ago+this+week-+the+crumbling+of+the+Berlin+Wall+began+an+empire-s+end&instance=home_opinion to http://www.annistonstar.com/pages/full_story/push?article-After+the+fall-+20+years+ago+this+week-+the+crumbling+of+the+Berlin+Wall+began+an+empire-s+end%20&id=4380443-After+the+fall-+20+years+ago+this+week-+the+crumbling+of+the+Berlin+Wall+began+an+empire-s+end&instance=home_opinion
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313233703/http://www.eaue.de/vortrag/Berlin-e.HTM to http://www.eaue.de/vortrag/Berlin-e.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) 15:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed additions to Aftermath section
Hi all, I intend to add some information to the "Aftermath" section of the article, specifically under "Views and Life Satisfaction." I came across the paper, "The Economic Impact of Social Ties: Evidence from German Reunification," by Konrad B. Burchardi and Tarek A. Hassan and I think their information regarding economic outcomes in Germany post-reunification would help further contextualize the importance of the event. Presently, the section discusses survey results about whether Germans viewed the reunification as positive or negative, and I think that adding information about how people benefitted economically would help emphasize the positive impact of the event. Specifically, I would include Burchardi and Hassan's finding that households and entrepreneurs with social ties to Eastern Germany saw significant increases in their incomes after reunification as compared to those without such connections. All in all, I'll be adding about 200 or so words, likely around 5-10 sentences. If anyone would like to discuss these potential changes, feel free to let me know on this talk page or on my talk page. Braedenlueken (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Instead of reunification: Rearmament, Amnesty for Nazis, EDC, and NATO
Remarkable, isn´t it, how the lede was buried. Has this been added and deleted in the past, or was I the first to contribute this a few minutes ago? The West German government of Konrad Adenauer rejected proposals following the 1952 Stalin note to reunify under terms of neutrality. The government instead pursued a policy of West German rearmament, while ending the process of denazification and declaring an amnesty. This lead to the 1952 establishment of the European Defense Community, and West Germany joined NATO in 1955. Have a nice day. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What is meant?
In para 3 is "....a full peace treaty concluding World War II for Germany was planned via its–including the exact delimitation of Germany's post-war boundary,..... Has something gone missing? Davidships (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the intended wording was along the lines of "...a full peace treaty concluding World War II for Germany was planned, including the exact delimitation of Germany's post-war boundary,...". Maabonnet (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Confusing wording of international effects
Under Effects > International Effects, it is stated "The practical result of that model is that the now-expanded Federal Republic of Germany inherited the old West Germany's seats at the UN, NATO, the European Communities, and other international organizations."

However, prior in the article, it is stressed that the Federal Republic of Germany is the same legal personality as West Germany was from its formation, and that "German Reunification" was the accession of East Germany as several states to the existing Federal Republic of Germany. The wording choice of "inherited the old West Germany's seats" heavily implies a successor state, such as the Russian Federation succeeding the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I suggest that the wording here and overall tone of this section be brought more in line with the legal principles of German reunification. Maabonnet (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Add Discussion of Social Leanings Differences between the former East and West under Effects > Domestic Effects
There remain considerable differences between social leanings of people in the former East and West Germanies. A discussion of these differences and others may be warranted in this section. See specifically Irreligion in Germany, and the East-West divide there. Maabonnet (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Information on naming
I added the following text, which was later removed by @Nillurcheier (please reply with your concerns):

Some people have stated that the reunification can be classified as an annexation of the GDR by the BRD. Scholar Ned Richardson-Little from the University of Erfurt noted that the terminology of an annexation can be interpreted from backgrounds across the political spectrum. In 2015, A Russian proposal was made that classified it as an annexation. Mikhail Gorbachev named it 'nonsense'. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked for a discussion before inserting. Most of the citations are quite old and many raise the question of "annexion" only to negate it. In current Germany this is a fringe position, which should not be given undue weight in this article. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a fringe position, and would argue that it always has been so, but it is still something that was discussed in high profile reliable sources and not some obscure internet forums. I think that especially the statement by Matthias Platzeck is worth mentioning. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nillurcheier I'm going to put it back in roughly the same form if nobody else objects. I don't see any other problems with it personally. Yes we should be careful to not give undue weight, but completely leaving it outside the article is also undue in my view. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that this is an important piece of information, and it is crucial to include it in the article since many opponents of the reunification called it annexation. Opponents of it do and did exist and this article should mention them and their points of view. Removing it was completely unwarranted.
 * You also said that "most of the citations are quite old". The reunification happened over 30 years ago, and it is a historical affair at this point. The age of the sources does not play any role here. In fact, an aged source can be seen positively. Brat Forelli (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023
Change "but under communist regime" to "but under a communist regime" Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Lemonaka‎  09:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Domestic Opposition to German Reunification"
This section seems to be given WP:UNDUE weight for its comparative lack of popular support. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems due if there are polls implying opposition or hesitation to unification in various forms, and since there were notable groups and people opposed to it. Brat Forelli🦊  04:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue isn't so much that the material is covered, but the depth in which it is covered. The paragraphs are largely paraphrasings of the arguments made in the papers, largely without attribution and no corresponding weight is provided to support for unification. I'm not German history expert, but I will say that they seem to be within a comparatively narrow ideological band, but granted, I'm not completely clued in on the general politcal/historical German consensus on the issue, so some German second opinions would be appreciated.. The omission of the pretty overwhelming electoral support for reunification in East Germany and not bourne out by polling beforehand, is concerning. Particularly since the election results cast a shadow on polling accuracy in East Germany at the time (likely oversampling of SED voters in polling). The section has a length issue, but that's another story. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we might be reaching too far here, since the way it went down is that there was no referendum on the unification itself. The election, the claims of irregularities or Western domination aside, is not a good indicator here and it would be pretty difficult for us to prove that everyone who voted for Alliance for Germany did so because they approved of unification. And in case of SPD, there is an indication (including in one of the sources in the section you are contesting) that unification was not favored by its voters.
 * The example of how interpreting elections and referendum in that way can be deceiving could be the 1955 Saar referendum:
 * "Nonetheless, the primary reason that the majority of Saarlanders voted as they did in 1955 was neither to express their approval for joining West Germany nor to voice their displeasure with Hoffmann’s government. Rather, Saarlanders rejected the European statute because they saw it as a ploy for continued French control of their territory. In the final analysis, France’s image in the Saar went from benevolent partner in 1947 to untrustworthy imperialistic power in 1955. Not only were the assumptions of France’s occupation backwardlooking, but the French were never able to move beyond their role as occupiers to that of true partners."
 * So the 1955 Saar referendum was not a referendum on joining West Germany, although ultimately it was interpreted as much, even if making a referendum on this would have given very different results. In this case we also have a similar situation - the election, after all, was on electing a new East German government and not joining West Germany. And it would be erroneous of us to assume that only pro-DDR groups could oppose unification. Brat Forelli🦊  05:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, unification was the primary item on the agenda for the election (and ended up being basically the only notable thing the Volkshammer did that term). I agree that there will always be some dispute over what an election actually "means" especially since there was no referendum, but it seems to be generally agreed upon that the unexpected victory of the pro-reuinification Christian Democratic Union (East Germany) over the more agnostic Social Democratic Party in the GDR (despite the latter's traditional strength in the region) was a clear signal of support for reunification. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the assessment of undue weight not only because it's covered in undue depth, but because broad statements such as: Throughout the entire Cold War and until 1990, reunification did not appear likely, and the existence of two German countries was commonly regarded as an established, unalterable fact. give the wrong impression in this context. The source here seems to imply a notion of opposition, but doesn't actually say anything about opposition as such. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)