Talk:Reichsbürger movement

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): C.Haferland.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal clarification
It's an intriguing article, but I think we could do with explaining this bit better:


 * ...which held that the Grundgesetz assumes that the Empire, as a subject of international law, survived the collapse of Nazi Germany, but is incapable of acting as a state because it lacks any organization, such as governmental authorities.[4] The KRRs do not, however, cite the Court's further holding that the Federal Republic is not a successor state to the Empire, but, as a state, identical to it.[5]

I had to read it over three or four times to work it out. Hrm. Is it right to say that the state of "Germany" existed throughout? First it was the Empire, then Weimar, then the Nazis, then there was a situation where the Allies remained in military occupation, there was no political entity of Germany around, but the country still existed in some kind of potential way. In 1949 this became the Federal Republic of Germany, which in 1991 then became all of Germany.

Conversely, the "successor state" argument, which they dismiss, would presumably be that out of the ruins of Nazi Germany, a new country called the FRG was created entirely anew, and that the old "Germany" was still floating around in an abstract sense.

Is this right? Shimgray | talk | 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that is what the Court meant to say. The text in the article is based on a direct translation of the Court's opinion, which is a bit opaque.  Sandstein   13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could try and attempt to explain this more clearly, but we would need to find good secondary sources for it to avoid inadvertent WP:OR.  Sandstein   13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This stuff is hard to understand even for Germans who don't rely on translations. There are discussions of the argument in german sources. It comes down to whether the Federal Republic is the same state as the Third Reich (which is basically what OP meant with with Germany existing throughout and just continuing) as opposed to the Republic being sort of created on top of the Third Reich which never "properly ended". I could write it up using german sources if that is within Wikipedia policy. --Fourthperson (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Micronation?
I have never heard of any group of this nature previously referred to as a micronation. Is there a reliable source for this assertion? If not, I propose we remove those references from the article. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They act like micronations (issuing their own stamps, currency, etc. not recognized by anyone), but unlike Sealand these people don't see themselves as proclaiming their (generally quirky and not entirely serious) own countries on forts in the middle of the ocean or some such. These people see themselves as being more of a government in exile and, claims-wise, share more in common with Emperor Norton. They make far bolder claims and regard the Federal Republic of Germany as illegitimate. So yes, I would say that describing this movement as a micronation is rather odd, even though it de facto operates as such. --Mrdie (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-WW2 borders?
Prior to the Second World War, Germany had anexed Austria, the Sudetenland, Memelland, Bohemia and Moravia. I suggest to use this map: The pre-WWII borders are in red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.133.35 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I understand that most of these groups want to return to Weimar Republic Germany, which they believe still exists, not the later Nazi acquisitions.  Sandstein   10:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

References to current debate
The article, although including the police-officer fatality, does not mention the larger political debate in Germany regarding the Reichsbürger movement. The description of the shootout on October 19, 2016, has missing/incorrect information. This includes the wrong amount of police officers wounded and the absence of the final verdict in the trial. Additionally, the list of Reich citizen movements can still be expanded to include more groups. C.Haferland (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Title
Why is the article title in German? There is no entity with that name, it's just a descriptive name. Compare with Bürgerrechtsbewegung, Civil rights movement. - 91.10.17.142 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it is a bit strange. Any suggestions? Reich citizens already directs here. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Interest in QAnon theories
Shouldn't it be added to this article that they are avidly interested in QAnon theories? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

General approach and changes
The article does not properly reflect the movement and the debate around it. The Reichsbürgerbewegung is a very heterogenous movement with several different versions of arguments. Speaking of "ideology" is debatable since for many it doesn't reach that level or is just a vehicle. There is too much focus on Wolfgang Ebel, him being only a small part of a much larger phenomenon. Also the guy died in 2014 while Reichsbürger have become more active since the 2000s.

Here is some sort of list:


 * Intro is basically fine, just needs some elaboration.
 * The Arguments section needs serious expansion. Not all Reichsbürger believe that an old Reich continues, and those who do can't agree on which one - for some it's the Third, for some the Weimar Republic, some go back even further. Some of them believe the German Republic to be a company (GmbH) and not a state at all. Some believe in continuing allied occupation. I suggest splitting this up into several subsections concerning the different arguments.
 * Pinning down the history of the movement is difficult, so I suggest keeping that section short. However, it should be clarified that the KRR is the first, but by no means the only or "best" group. Also, arguments that the Reich (the Third one) never collapsed go back to shortly after the war in right-wing spheres, Ebel didn't make that stuff up.
 * To what extent the movement is part of the extreme right is actually debated in Germany. Some of them are proper Neo Nazis. Others however are more like sovereign citizens, some have big esoterical or spiritual influences without much politics. Some only use the arguments as a vehicle to not pay speeding tickets.
 * Membership section is alright.
 * Activities section is not wrong, but could use less Wolfgang Ebel and more focus on recent activities.
 * Groups list is an absolutely weird selection. Ur and Fürstentum Germania, alright. The other two aren't as relevant. More important ones are (maybe in that order) Königreich Deutschland by Peter Fitzek (Kingdom of Germany), Staatenbund Deutsches Reich (a sort of federation of several smaller states, including Freistaat Preußen), Norbert Schittke and Exilregierung Deutsches Reich (Goverment in Exile German Reich, Selim Sürmeli (who has founded several "human rights courts").

I suppose this can't be done using only english-language sources, but would be easy to do with german ones.

Sources: For verification I'd refer you to the German Wikipedia article if you need something translated: Also there are some of these more or less comprehensive and academic overviews:

Dirk Wilking (ed.): Reichsbürger. Ein Handbuch. 2017. Download here:

Andreas Speit (ed.): Reichsbürger. Die unterschätzte Gefahr. 2017.

Sophie and Christoph Schönberger (ed.): Die Reichsbürger. Verfassungsfeinde zwischen Staatsverweigerung und Verschwörungstheorie. 2020.

Amadeu Antonio Stiftung: Reichsbürger und Souveränisten. Basiswissen und Handlungsstrategien. 2018. Download here:

This is from the perspective of a german political science person who's been researching the topic a lot. --Fourthperson (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Decem 2022
Hope the article will cover soon the recent legal actions against the group. Egeymi (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The editors are inserting text without checking what other people contributed. We have largely repetitive passages now.--Killuminator (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I agree that there some repetitive passages, and I don't think that it is useful to have a language template for every single time we write  Reichsbürger  here. There is also more recent material, that is preferable to older newspaper items. - I am reading the Verfassungsschutzbericht of 2021 now. Ziko (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think of having a stand alone page on the 2022 Germany police raid? -- M h hossein   talk 07:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * there is already a page 2022 Germany coup d'état plot. --Egeymi (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 07:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"the German Reich, which existed from 1871 to 1945"
If you understand German history 101, you'll note that Germany was under three very different poltical systems during those years, and that there was no continuous "Reich" government. Further clarification here is needed. It seems that the central idea behind this group is that the Bundesrepublik is illegitimate, some form of pre-1945 German government is still a legal entity (and there seems to be disagreement within that movement as to which one that is, though it seems that those who support the 1871-1918 German "First Reich" are the main tendency), and that everything within Germany's pre-WWII or even pre-WWI borders still belongs to Germany.

I think it would benefit this article enoromously if there was translation and or using the same sources as the German Wikipedia article (de:Reichsbürgerbewegung), which covers this movement in far more detail and is much better sourced. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that that sentence is inaccurate. Just a point of clarification: the "First Reich" would be the Holy Roman Empire, while the unified German Empire under the Hohenzollerns would be the "Second Reich." Of course, these are not actually historical terms, but it's the "Second Reich" that this movement seeks to return to. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The official name of Germany was "Deutsches Reich" until 1943 (when it became Großdeutsches Reich). East Germany accused West Germany of being the successor and continuation of the fascist state, and West Germany didn't exactly proclaim themselves as the successor state to the Nazis' dictatorship. (An aside: the term "Third Reich" has historiographical baggage too; I wrote an essay on my user page about it.) I suggest we change "... the German Reich, which existed from 1871 to 1945." to something like "in favour of a German "Reich" that they believe exists as a de jure successor state to the former German Empire." but that's a bit wordy for the lead.Ich (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, forget about "First", "Second", "Third" Reich. :-) Those terms have always been inaccurate and unofficial. They don't really help us, and they are not necessary. German historians hardly use them. If you want to talk about the Holy Roman Empire, the Empire, the Weimar Republic and the NS state, you can do so directly.

To my knowledge, most of the "Reichsbürger und Selbstverwalter" who link themselves to a former constitution of Germany, refer to the Weimar Constitution. Some to the imperial constitution of 1871. But the "Selbstverwalter" do not need such a historical reference, they simply declare themselves "independent" or "souverain".

If I understand you correctly, dear Peter G Werner, you ask about Reichsbürger referring to the NS state (Hitler reign, 1933-45). I cannot find that in a source right now, but my observation is that the Reichsbürger usually don't do that. For several reasons:
 * Anyone who puts himself into the tradition of the Hitler reign would swiftly meet a reaction from the German authorities. For example, if you display a swastika on your website you might face 5 years in prison.
 * Hitler was installed in 1933 as leader of the government (Reichskanzler) based on the Weimar constitution. Later he assumed the powers of the Reich President without taking the office, via a (unfree) plebiscite. Before his suicide, Hitler "installed" a Reich President via his last will, Karl Dönitz. So if you want to "continue" a historical constitution, then the structure of the Hitler reign does not really work. The last head of state in 1945 was not Hitler, but Dönitz.
 * By the way, Wolfgang Ebel going to former "Reich President" Dönitz was how this Reichsbürger craze started in the first place. And "Reich President" was a title or office known from the Weimar constitution.

The overall question is: are the Reichsbürger simply a kind of right wing extremism? This is complicated. In theory, a Reichsbürger does not have to be a right wing extremist (automatically). But in reality, it is fair to say that many of the Reichsbürger hold right wing extremist views (such as antisemitism, social darwinism, racism...).

According to Verfassungsschutz, only some of the Reichsbürger groups are part of the "traditional" right wing extremists. A traditional member of NPD may somehow question the legitimation of the Federal Republic (on ideological grounds, such as a racist view on citizenship), or call for a new world order etc. But the NPD does participate in general elections (thereby recognizing the Federal Republic), and I suppose that hardly any NPD member or skinhead walks around with a phantasy passport in his pocket.

Still, it is a general feature of the Reichsbürger (and right wing extremists and left wing extremists) that they are "extremists" according to the legal and theoretical framework of German political science and Verfassungsschutz. They are extremist because they reject the basic order of freedom and democracy (freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung) and the democratically elected organs of the Federal Republic.

About the article here, I think that it can benefit from some restructuring and work with more recent sources. Ziko (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)