Talk:Weimar Republic/Archive 3

Chancellor
I think more chancellors should be mentioned in the article. Philipp Scheidemann, Gustav Bauer, Hermann Müller, Constantin Fehrenbach, Joseph Wirth, Wilhelm Cuno, Gustav Stresemann, Wilhelm Marx, Hans Luther, Wilhelm Marx, Hermann Müller, Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen, Kurt von Schleicher were all the chancellors of the Weimar Republic. Not Adolf Hitler, when he became chancellor, the third Reich started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes Kallwies (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Eisner
I just edited out a reference to Kurt Eisner which originally read: "The first challenge to the Weimar Republic came when a group of communists and anarchists, led by Kurt Eisner, took over the Bavarian government in Munich and declared the creation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. The communist rebel state was put down one month later when Freikorps units were brought in to fight the leftist rebels."

This is incorrect. As is already shown on the pages for the Bavarian Soviet Republic and for Kurt Eisner himself, Eisner proclaimed a Bavarian "Free State" after the deposing of the King of Bavaria at the end of World War I and advocated a "Socialist Republic", but the Bavarian "Soviet Republic" was proclaimed after his assassination by Eugen Leviné and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary Klaas (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Moresnet
May I remark that the position of Moresnet(blue white black flag) on the map is all wrong. it's much smaller and more northwarts. It's the most upper part of the properties gained by Belgium. Besides Moresnet ceased to exist after WW1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.0.162 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Freistaat (Free State)
I have just copied a map onto the article page from the article States of Germany. I have left the caption alone. "The Länder of the Weimar Republic, with the Free State of Prussia (Freistaat Preußen) as the largest". But were the federal parts of the Weimar Republic called Länder in the constitution or some other name?

Articles like Free state (government) also use the term Länder,"In Germany the term free state (in German, Freistaat) was part of the full names of most Länder (federal states) during the inter-war period." is the term correct for the Weimar Republic?

In the article States of Germany has another map with "The Provinces of the Kingdom of Prussia (green) within the German Empire (1871-1918)" Was East Prussia a province of Prussia the Weimar Republic or did it have some other designation? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Weimar Constitution called the states "Länder", much to the dismay of the states. This is one example of centralizing effects of the Weimar Constituion, which is an often overlooked problem of the new system. However, the various Länder all had names of their own and most of them called themselves Freistaat (Free state), Hessen was a Volksstaat (Popular state) and Baden a Republic. As for Prussian provinces. Everything that was Prussian under the Kaiser was also Prussian under the Weimar Republic (with the exception of the territories ceded to other nations, most notably Poland). The only change in provinces was that the remnants of the Provinces of Western Prussia and Posen were merged into a new province. Some parts of Western Prussia were also merged into Eastern Prussia. All other provinces remained the same. Str1977 (smile back) 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: The terminus "Freistaat" is an attempt to render into german the latin "res publica". Thus "Freistaat" is to be considered a synonyme to "republic" in the german context.

Zweites Reich
I wasn't a fan of the part that glosses over the political structure of Germany prior to WWI. I was under the impression that while the ministers in the Kaiser's government were ultimately answerable to the Kaiser, the Bundestag had control of the purse strings. Historically, this arrangement typically leads to parlimentary democracies (I think...like in Britain?). I usuallly think that the Zweite Reich gets treated too much as a totalitarian regime that was an enemy of democrcy, while in reality it was probably on a course to eventual parliamentary democracy. But, I'm not a student of Germany history...So feel free to enlighten me. 67.160.235.243 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To call any German state prior to 1933 totalitarian is just ridiculous. Those who do probably haven't considered what the term actually means.
 * In the Kaiserreich, there actually were no ministers as such. There was the Chancellor appointed by the Kaiser. The Chancellor had his sub-secretaries that later developed into something like ministers but these were never politically responsible to anyone.
 * The Reichstag (=parliament) had legislative powers and budget power, though that was limited regarding the military budget (and that was the largest part of the budget): the military budget was voted every seven years - the Reichstag was elected every three years.
 * The Bundesrat (=states' representation) was in the beginning the central body and it was more powerful than the Reichstag.
 * In 1918 however, the constituion was changed, under the pressure of World War I (especially the US and the German military leaders that wanted to shift the blame): ministers were introduced and made politically responsible and the Chancellor needed parliament's approval. Members of parliament (Social Democrats, Centre Party, Left-wing Liberals) became ministers. But this arrangement was short-lived because of the revolution in November.
 * However, it should be clear that it were these changes and not the revolution that turned Germany into a parliamentary system. Ebert would have preferred a parliamentary monarchy with a different Emperor.
 * How things would have unfolded without the war, we cannot tell. Str1977 (smile back) 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, it's a while since I have studied German history, but I seem to remember a school of thought (Fisher, Berghan?) which argued that the contradictions and tensions within the Kaiserreich between feudal/militaristic and parliamentary elements made it inherently unstable? The war, this thesis continues, was in some respects a consequence of these contradictions. I doubt very much if the Prussian Junkers around Wilhelm would ever willingly have surendered power-and control of the military-to the Reichstag. You are right, though, to dismiss any suggestion that the Second Reich was 'totalitarian'; but does any state-with the possible exception of Stalin's Russia-come anywhere near this model? Hitler's Reich was such a bundle of madly competing interests that it cannot really be described as totalitarian in any meaningful sense. White Guard 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about this school of thought.
 * I also doubt that a parlamentarisation would have easily happened. There certainly would have been conflicts about that, the outcome of which we can never know.
 * About "totalitarian":
 * The difference between "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" is that the latter merely demands obedience from its subjects (and to the extent that any state does that, any state is authoritarian). The former however is not content with mere obedience, it wants complete internal assent, in a way, it wants to be loved. You could grumble about politics under the Kaiser and thought this didn't change anything, you were free to do it. You couldn't under Hitler.
 * Now, there were a couple of totalitarian regimes: you mention Stalin (but let us not forget, that the Soviet Union was already totalitarian under Lenin and remained totalitarian under Stalin's successors), but there's also Nazi Germany, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge, or to go back in time, the French Republic under Robespierre. And certainly various revolutions (or wannabe revolutions) have created an totalitarian environment, but as they were short-lived I won't go into details.
 * One more thing: the totalitarian nature of a regime does not depend on whether it actually has the means to implement its totalitarian objectives - yes, there were niches under Hitler and also in the Soviet Union but they existed because the regime could not (yet) remove them.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

GA status

 * Send it to peer review now for more insights. Lincher 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitution
Does anyone out there have the text of the constitution of the Republic? It seems like a relevant issue to me.

EDIT: Found it and put it in "see also"

King ofall1 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
"And They Liked Balls" has been shoved at the bottom of the page, I am putting this here so you know its happened once - if this happens again, you may need to lock the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.86 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

merge proposal
Similar to the entry on the German Empire, I propose the incorporation of List of Weimar states into this article. That particular article is just a list that is only linked to from the member states themselves (probably just via the navbar States of the Weimar Republic). This article, at the moment, focusses heavilly on the historical aspects of the Weimar Republic, but not so much on the geographical. Information about the states that made up Germany at this period in time would round out the article more. - 52 Pickup 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections, I've gone ahead with the merge. - 52 Pickup 11:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruling onself?
The lead claims that the Weimar Republic ruled Germany 1919-33, but this is rather nonsensical. A country is ruled by one or more of its citizen in the form of dictators, political parties, juntas, etc, but the country doesn't rule itself. Could someone tweak this to make it seem less illogical?

Peter Isotalo 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
In light of a near complete lack of inline citations, I am taking this article to GA Review. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of the review was to Delist the article. An archive of the review can be found here.  However, since the only issues seem to be lack of in-line citations, we encourage editors of this article to resubmit the article to WP:GA/R if the article is ever improved. Drewcifer 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary for intro
I'm about to make what I think is a pretty minor edit for the introduction, but I wanted to provide an explanation here in case it turns out to be contentious. In the sentence "Despite its political form, the new republic was still officially known as the Deutsches Reich in German, rendered as "German Empire" or the half-translated term "German Reich" in English", I'm removing the words "the half-translated term". First, because the reader can see the words "German Reich" there on the screen, so doesn't need to be told it's half-translated; second because it's not half-translated, since "Reich" is a word in the English language, appearing in English-language dictionaries (including wiktionary); and third, because it comes across as dismissive (whether or not that was the original intent) and therefore POV, as if the author is looking down on people who use "German Reich" instead of "German Empire" (which is odd since, as noted in an earlier section of this talkpage, the original German "Reich" has connotations that are lost if it's translated as "Empire"). Binabik80 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. This all came up from a rather lengthy debate a while ago regarding the name, which I hope I managed to settle a while ago when I clarified the German Reich article. After going through a swathe of documents, it became clear to me that "Empire" is officially correct only for 1871-1918 Germany. I can't remember if I wrote the "half-translated" bit or not: I think I did, if only to stop people from incorrectly using "Empire" - the same can be said for the Nazi Germany article. - 52 Pickup  (deal) 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External link to Weimar Germany by Eric Weitz
I would like to add a link to the radio interview I did with cultural historian Eric Weitz about his 2007 book Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy. I've been working on a book about a resistance group in Occupied Holland that was led by a writer who came out of the disparate currents of Weimar (he was a gay, philosemitic, conservative tangentially linked to the circle of Stefan George who published a book called der Dritte Humanismus)and so the cultural history of Weimar has figured significantly in my research. I only mention this as a bona fide to say that Weitz' book is an excellent treatment of the period and our interview would add, I think, to the knowledge of people visiting this article. The link to the interview is --Francesca Rheannon (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Weimar-Bonn-Berlin Republics
Concept calling the different German Republics after towns (it's relativly often used by German media, don't know if it's used outside Germany) Weimar Republic Bonn Republic (West Germany) Berlin Republic (Reunited Germany) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.208.244 (talk • contribs)


 * I've never seen these Bonn/Berlin names used in English. Not very often in German, either. - 52 Pickup   (deal)  15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about cooperation with Soviet Union, avoiding Versailles military restrictions, waging economical war, lack of minorities treaty...
The article lacks information:
 * About vast Soviet-German cooperation in political matters, military matters, aimed at third parties that lasted till 1933.
 * About lack of protection for minorities in the state as Germany never signed the minorites treaty
 * About harassment and discrimination of ethnic minorities like Masurs that happened for example by state officials in education system
 * Weimar Republic's attempts to re-arm avoiding limitations of Versailles Treaty.
 * Weimar Republic's destabilisation of European economy by waging economic war against Poland
 * Attempts by Weimar Republic to revise borders in Central Europe by economical and political blackmail

This and other important aspects of Weimar Republic's history and action need to be presented in the article. I shall try to work on this when time permits. --Molobo (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you are not making much progress with that !  Not surprising,  because the issues you raised are rubbish.Eregli bob (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nsdap1932.jpg
The image Image:Nsdap1932.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Judicial review?
This passage (of mine) got me thinking.

"The constitution was never formally repealed, but the Enabling Act meant that all its other provisions were a dead letter. The Enabling Act itself was breached by Hitler on three occasions in 1934: Article 2 of the act stated that 'Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.'"The powers of the Länder (states) were transferred to the Reich, obsolescing the Reichsrat. A month later, the Reichsrat itself was dissolved. In August, President von Hindenburg died, and Hitler appropriated the president's powers for himself. The Enabling Act did not specify any recourse that could be taken if the chancellor violated Article 2, and no judicial challenge ensued.

1) Under the Weimar constitution, was it possible to challenge government actions in the courts, a la United States, on the grounds that they were unconstitutional?

2) If so, did it ever happen?

3) I'm assuming no-one was foolhardy enough to bring such a suit against Hitler's third reich, but could it have legally happened?

4) If you couldn't bring a constitutional suit, did they just trust that the gov would uphold the constitution? Or was there some other safeguard?

5) Hitler was not someone who respected legal proceedure for its own sake. But in the Enabling Act it says that "Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date".

Did Hitler actually bother to announce his laws in the Gazette once everyone was out of the way? And if he wanted to do something, he probably wouldn't bother to pass a law authorising it first (Night of the Long Knives, for instance). Does this mean that he was constantly breaking the law while he was in office, notwithstanding that it was extremely generous to him in the definition of his power? BillMasen (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Judicial review was possible and expressly contemplated under the Constitution. The most notable case related to Papen's seizure of power in Prussia in the summer of 1932 after Nazi electoral victories (the Preussenschlag).

The Prussian Landtag electoral rules had been revised by the then-majority coalition, such that if a government lost a no-confidence vote, a new government required an absolute majority to replace it. In April 1932 the Nazis and their German Nationalist allies won about 200 seats, while the SPD and Center gathered about 160. The KPD, who would not join a coalition with either, garnered 57 seats. The SPD-run cabinet resigned but also continued (under the re-defined rules) as a caretaker government until a new prime minister could be chosen.

On 14 June the national ban against the SA was lifted; that against the Red Front remained in place. On 28 June the national government prohibited state governments from imposing their own bans against the Nazi organs. Street battles ensued. On 14 July Papen obtained an Article 48 decree from Hindenburg, effectively allowing him as Reich Chancellor to assume the Prussian government's powers; the pretext was that the SPD and the KPD elements in the Prussian government were conspiring against the Nazis (a claim which was on its face ridiculous as those parties could have coalesced in April-June 1932 to form a majority government in Prussia).

On Sunday July 17 the Altona riot left 17 dead. On July 20 the Prussian government was forcibly removed from office and Papen installed himself as Commissar of Prussia.

The SPD brought suit in the Constitutional Court to enjoin Papen's actions, and the SPD prayer for preliminary injunctive relief was denied on 25 July. On 25 October the Court issued its final decision.

Papen's defenses were that:
 * the disturbances in Prussia were ultimately the work of the communists. In this, the SPD dominated government of Prussia had collaborated. As a result, the government had lost its independence and was thus unable to carry out its duties under the Constitution.
 * the actions taken by the defendant were not intended to obliterate the authority of the Prussian state. Even though the decree had entirely nullified the power of the Prussian state and had effectively transferred that to Papen as Commissioner, this was only a temporary measure aimed at removing the influence of the communists, and thus restoring law and order to Prussia. Thus, the arrogation of power was intended to further, and not to impede, the functioning of the Prussian government.
 * he had offered to work together with the Prussian ministers, but this offer was refused, leaving him no choice but to seek the more drastic remedy of the Article 48 decree.

The SPD countered that:
 * there was no collaboration between the communists and the SPD as alleged
 * it was absurd to ignore the Nazi role in provoking the civil disturbances and to assign all blame to the communists
 * if it were to "work with" Papen as he offered, the Prussian government would effectively agree to the claim that the national government had a right to interfere, a claim that the state government strongly resisted
 * the Prussian government's difficultly in responding to the disorder had been largely created by the national government which had legalized the Nazi organization's demonstrations, outlawed the communists demonstrations or counter-demonstrations, and deprived the state government of the legal authority to take independent action to outlaw the Nazi demonstrations.

The Court in making its decision ruled that it had jurisdiction to decide the case and that it was not injudiciously making a "political decision" which was committed to other branches of the government.

In respect of Papen's argument under paragraph 1 of Article 48, the Court held that this presented a legal and factual dispute and that the national government bore the burden of demonstrating that the state government was not fulfilling its duties of contending with the breakdown of law and order, to the best of its ability. The Court ruled that Papen failed to demonstrate this and that therefore his argument to entitlement under paragraph 1 must fail.

However, it also held that paragraph 2 regulated a different situation than that contemplated by paragraph 1. Under paragraph 2, the Court taking note of the near total breakdown of public order and safety, the President was entitled to take the measures he had taken, assuming control not merely of the Prussian police but indeed the entire governmental apparatus of Prussia. The Court did not accept the Prussian government's argument that the displacement of all Prussian ministers, instead of simply the head of state and the minister of the Interior, was a flagrant abuse of discretion.

The Court held that nevertheless the Presidential decree had to stay within the bounds of the Constitution, but this gave the Prussian government very little. The Prussian government could not, for example, be deprived of its right to representation in the national Reichsrat or to relate to other Lander (Articles 17 & 63). This, however, in no way granted the Prussian government the relief that it sought. SixBlueFish (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

November Revolution
Midway through this section of the article (starting with the paragraph "As in other countries..."), the writing style changes radically from the reasonably clear and grammatical to the confused, awkward and ungrammatical. I am no expert in this period of German history and would therefore be very reluctant to undertake a revision of the kind and magnitude that is needed here. Can anyone else help out? Drichter53 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Name change
Am I the only one who thinks this page should be renamed to "Weimar Germany?" Vichy France isn't titled "Vichy Regime" or "Vichy State." --Kevin W. 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Hitler POV
''Otto Wels, the leader of the Social Democrats, whose seats were similarly depleted from 120 to below 100, was the only speaker to defend democracy and in a futile but brave effort to deny Hitler the two-thirds majority, he made a speech critical of the abandonment of democracy to dictatorship. At this Hitler could no longer restrain his wrath.''

Brave effort? Restrain his wrath? Please more NPOV. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see these as POV in the sense of being partial. However, I would say the sentence including "restrain his wrath" should be removed because it states as fact what is actually speculation on Hitler's state of mind; it is possible that Hitler's screaming etc. was not indicative of wrath but was just acting. The next sentence is referenced and states Hitler's reaction objectively. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions as to motivation and state of mind. The same could possibly be said of the word "brave", which could be removed without detriment to the article, in my opinion. Sometimes less is more. --Boson (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is no pov, it is just what happended there. "Futile" and "brave" also describe his actions accurately, because openly resisting Hitler could be very dangerous for later times. This is also not enough for a POV Tag. StoneProphet (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms.
At the bottom of the infobox, there is a note stating "The above shown coat-of-arms was the conclusive version created by Emil Doepler (d. 1922), readopted by the then Federal Republic of Germany in 1949, an earlier version for Weimar looked like this:", followed by a small image. The thing is, the image is the same as the one at the top. There is obviously an error somewhere, either with the top image, the bottom image or the inclusion of the box in the first place. There is a citation, but it is a book citation, so I can't check to see which it is.  Alphathon ™ ( talk ) 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

purposely injected opinion
I don't know if this part is vandalism, but in the second paragraph it states: In its 14 years, of nothing that is worth recording, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems...

I am changing this now, but a quick check proved to me that there have been other instances of vandalism. There are obviously people here that cannot try to see history through as much of an objective lens as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The CIS (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Further reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic
The Occupation of the Rhineland and the Occupation of the Ruhr may be further reasons of failure, because these occupations caused a lot of political disorder and problems for the first German republic. Many Germans of that time may have felt humiliated about these occupations and may have given the responsability for this humiliation to the democratic politicians of the Weimar Republic.-Tfjt (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Weimar Republic
"However, it overcame many of the oppressive requirements of the Treaty of Versailles"... This statement is more of an opinion rather than of fact. The Treaty of Vesailles did not impose economic requirements any more "oppressive" than those imposed on the French at the end of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, in equal economic terms. The fact that German nationalism of the 30s opposed them as 'oppressive' does not make them being oppressive a fact. Besides the fact that the Germans repaid all of the reparations required of Versailles in the 1990s would seem to invalidate this "opinion". Zargon2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC).


 * There are problems with the new, unsourced statement "even though Germany eventually repaid all the reparations required of the treaty in the 1990s". Firstly, the date needs to be confirmed. Secondly we need confirmation that the full amount specified in the Treaty of Versailles was repaid. Thirdly, the way the statement is formulated ("even though . . .") implies a point of view that is unattributed. --Boson (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The current status of reparations is referenced in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations, which states that "West Germany paid off the remainder by 1980. According to the agreement, the debt would be serviced for 20 years, leading to the last payments being due on 3 October 2010, the 20th anniversary of German reunification. About 10% of this debt, about 20 million euro, has not been claimed yet." And also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_German_External_Debts, this: "The total under negotiation was 16 billion marks of debts from the 1920s which had defaulted in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented postwar loans by the U.S. Under the London Debts Agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced by 50% to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact." And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations, "The last instalment of these reparations has been paid on 3 October 2010." I will change the article to reflect these more accurate statements. Zargon2010 (talk)

Another reference: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=189637 Zargon2010 (talk)

"Faced with ... hostility from the victors of World War I." Where are the references and support for this statement? From everything I have read, Weimar enjoyed much support from the victors of WWI, including reducing the amount of reparations not once, but twice, through restructuring of their debt, including the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. The major hostility to Weimar came from nationalist groups within Germany, not from groups outside Germany. Zargon2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

1923 inflation crisis
I don't quite agree with -
 * "In early the postwar years, inflation was growing at an alarming rate, but the government simply printed more and more banknotes to pay the bills. By 1923," etc.

In fact the imperial government had been printing money since August 1914 as it could not sell bonds outside Germany to pay for the war. It is true that the Weimar republic printed money, but the problem was 9 years old, not 4.86.42.192.218 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Abdication of Emperor
How did this happen?

It seems that SPD illegally "founded" the weimar thing. without a popular election or any sort. --85.104.54.249 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the weimar thing". The Weimar Constitution was passed by the elected Weimar National Assembly. --Boson (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Council of the People's Deputies" consists of three guys. Three persons -out of nowhere- seize the power: legislative and executive. These three guys asssemble a council as they like. Make a republic. Where is the law here?--85.104.54.249 (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the Emperor was gone and it was time for a new regime. The new one immediately held free elections. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Second Paragraph: Dictatorial powers of "liberal democracy"
The second paragraph is worded cleverly where it reads that "The ensuing period of liberal democracy lapsed by 1930, when Hindenburg assumed dictatorial emergency powers, leading...". But those dictatorial powers were a feature of the Weimar Republic's "liberal democracy" even before Hindenburg's dictatorship. Thus, "liberal democracy" did not lapse in 1930 but continued after Hindenburg assumed emergency powers provided by "liberal democracy" itself. In fact, the electoral machinery of "liberal democracy" was in place when Hitler contested Hindenburg for the presidency in 1932, and the machinery of the Weimar Republic was functioning so well that there was even a run-off election for the presidency. (That was an interesting emergency dictatorship, nicht wahr?)

Given the dictatorial features inherent to that "liberal democracy" and the lifespan of the constitution of 1919, it would be much better to replace the flawed sentence with this:


 * The ensuing period of liberal democracy continued after Hindenburg assumed dictatorial emergency powers in 1930 and at least until the elections of 1932.

We need to deal also with the flatly untrue claim that "the measures taken by the Nazis in the early part of their rule rendered the constitution irrelevant". First of all, no reference is given to substantiate the claim. Second, the Nazis' rule, like Hindenburg's dictatorship, was not independent of the constitution of the Weimar Republic. The article itself has already suggested this (but again references and clarity are lacking). In short, no Weimar Republic, no Nazi dictatorship. Now we can see more clearly yet another problem in the second paragraph. It reads that "The legal measures taken by the new Nazi government in February and March 1933...meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution". Once again, proper references are missing. More importantly, what we know so far about the Weimar Republic's constitution suggests that the Weimar Republic provided the Nazis with flexibility needed to "legislate contrary to the constitution". Thus did dictatorial powers of the Weimar Republic provide the foundation of not only one dictatorship, Hindenburg's, but two.

At this point it seems reasonable to conclude that the entire paragraph was deliberatly slanted to direct the reader away from painful or embarrassing conclusions about the Weimar Republic and "liberal democracy". Still, the paragraph needs to be rewritten to accomadate the truth, not the predilections and thin skin of leftists and republicans with an ax to grind. For example, we might eliminate the mealy-mouthedness of the last sentence by replacing it:


 * Thus, although 1933 is usually seen as the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Hitler's Third Reich, the Third Reich was merely a phase of the Weimar Republic.

The passage, "1933 is usually seen as the end of the Weimar Republic", is not new to the article.

50.194.104.82 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Hitler's chancellorship (1933)"
Section 10.5 begins as follows:


 * "Hitler's chancellorship (1933)


 * Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on the morning of 30 January 1933..."

This fact is omitted from the Infobox at the top right, as is the name of at least one other chancellor. Since the fact of Hitler's chancellorship is already asserted in the article, it should not be controversial to add his name after Schleicher's in the Infobox. I'll add Papen's, too.

50.194.104.82 (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Upon opening the edit page I discovered that someone else had already added to the infobox the names of most other chancellors. For some reason, however, markup code was added to prevent their display. So I made changes to account for fifteen chancellors of the Weimar Republic, but there's a little problem. Only six names will display. (These are Scheidemann through Cuno, which brings us only as far as August of 1923.) I don't know what the problem in the code is, but if someone knows how to fix it, then please do so.


 * I want to make a few more general remarks about this article, which has numerous other problems in addition to the incoherence that I've attempted to correct by editing the list of chancellors. As things stand, the article is a mishmash of history and personalities that neglects the structure of the central government, the institutions of the central government, and, of course, the constitution used by the Nazis until the bitter end of their regime. Another problem is even more significant. It seems that the phrase "Weimar Republic" was defined arbitrarily long ago to trivialize the fact that Hitler was one of the Weimar Republic's ministers, but as we've seen the popular defintion is difficult to maintain. The Weimar Republic itself installed Hitler in power as its chancellor, and it was both the machinery and a founding document of the WR that the Nazis continued to rely upon even afer 1933. These and other embarrasing facts such as the presence of numerous non-nazis in Hitler's cabinet and the continuation of the presidency until Aug 1934 betray the fact that the Weimar Republic extended well into the period often described as the Third Reich, which supposedly began in March 1933. (In short, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany overlap, contrary to the false dichotomy often assumed by historians.)


 * Another problem is in the first paragraph. The explanation of the "Weimar Republic" as "the federal republic and parliamentary representative democracy..." is useful for sheltering the reputations of German republicans and leftists against the quite reasonable suspicion that the Weimar Republic made the Nazis' despotism much more likely that it would have been if the weaker imperial government been preserved after WWI. But that opening explanation of the WR is no good way to get the truth out. Given the origins of the Weimar Republic, so called, among a relatively small clique of self-appointed populist leaders, we should call the Weimar Republic "a populist oligarchy which assumed at the beginning the forms of a federal republic and parliamentary representative democracy but which ended its life as a barbarous despotism". It's just a coincidence, of course, that leftwing revolutions in both Germany and Russia at about the same time helped to establish not only the aforementioned populist oligarchy in Germany but another one in Russia.


 * Anyhow, the popular meaning of phrase "Weimar Republic" is slanted in ways that make it nearly useless analytically and, furthermore, contrary to NPOV. But the Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a place for editorializing about the defectiveness of the phrase's popular usage or how such a phrase might be used properly. So I think that Wikipedia needs a new article for the central government of Germany for the period 1919 through 1945, when the allies imposed a new government. (It could be called "Central Government of Germany 1919-1945".) The title would not suffer from slanting useful for trivializing leftists' responsibility for the Nazis' rise to power, and the new article would include relevant information now only sprinkled in "Weimar Republic" and another messy, incoherent article, "Nazi Germany". The articles for Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany could then be reduced to stubs or just a few paragraphs. The problems of the arbitrary terms will have been sidestepped as will the question of how much the Weimar Republic overlapped with Nazi Germany. It's not at all arbitrary, however, that Germany had an evolving central government during the period 1919 - 1945 or that the government began in oligarchy, ended in oligarchy, and relied throughout upon some writing called a constitution.


 * 50.194.104.82 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * no change please. thousands of serious historians worldwide find "Weimar Republic" to be useful and use it in both scholarly and popular work, and in teaching and research.  "Central Government of Germany 1919-1945" is not used by anyone. Rjensen (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But he/she still has a point on the infobox. It makes no sense to have the chancellors end in 1923. Better get rid of the section altogether.Drow69 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Call for polish
Am I the only one who feels that the writing could be tweaked/polished beginning from the section "Franz von Papen calls new elections? I would do it myself, but I came looking because I don't know much about Weimar Germany.  Oh, and I'm lazy. 09:52, 8 February 2006 unsigned by 64.180.47.30

Weimar stamp
Hi this might not be appropriate to ask.. but i was just wondering if you guys knew where the weimar republic stamp was (ie the ink rubber stamp, and it was black on white paper. on its own). I'm sure i have seen it on one of the articles about weimar etc, 2-3 weeks ago. But now i cant find it. Would any of u hava clue.? please help thanx

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.91.148 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2006‎ (UTC)

Too much information in article on the rise of Hitler, not enough on ther Weimar Republic itself
While the rise to power of Hitler was a major event in the Weimar Republic's dissolution, there are other topics that should be added to give a full picture of the Weimar Republic such as more information about the "golden era" under Stressman, as well as culture and society during the time. User:R-41 18:21, 11 August 2007‎ (UTC)

Brüning a "conservative"?
I don't think it's OK to denote Brüning a "conservative". Brüning was Zentrum, i.e. Christian Democrat. The label "conservative" in the german pre-33 context would apply to DNVP and their ilk, i.e. monarchistic and nationalistic. In contrast to todays CDU, which combines a christian democrat (predominatly catholic) and a conservative wing (predominatly  protestant), the Zentrum party was largely christian democrat and predominatly catholic. German protestants before 33 voted monarchistic, liberal or social democrat, but not Zentrum. Personally, I think that Brüning was a honest man, and his attemps to save democracy were earnest. The tragedy was that he attempted his noble goal via with anti-parlamentary means, thus paving the way for authoritarian regimes like Papen and Schleicher, and finally Hitler. In this sense, there may be paralleles to Dollfuss in Austria.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.230.241 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008‎ (UTC)

wrong Coats of Arms
the site uses the Coats of Arms of the Federal Republic of Germany the style of the Coats of Arms of the Weimar Republic were different: see: Coat of arms of Germany

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.184.100 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2009‎ (UTC)

Reparation
This article claims that in 1923, the Weimar Republic claimed it could "no longer afford the reparation payments," and that it "defaulted" on "some payments." According to the book "Paris 1919," Germany ignored reparation payments from the beginning. It seems ascribing any part of the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic to unreasonable reparation payments is a fallacious argument; no payments were ever made, so no drain on the economy. In fact, even if payments had been made, (according to the book), the German economy should have been able to handle it easily. By way of contrast, after France's surrender in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, Germany extracted reparation payments which were much higher, proportionately speaking (considering the size of the French economy in 1871), than the payments expected from Germany in 1919. Yet, although France struggled, it managed to pay back all the reparations demanded of her. I suggest someone research this more thoroughly to ensure its correctness, and perhaps include it in the article. The book to which I refer seems very well researched; the author's name escapes me, but she's a female, and, I believe, Winston Churchill's granddaughter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.2.104 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2010‎ (UTC)

where Germans constituted only part or a minority of local populations despite nationalist outrage at the fragmentation of Germany
"where Germans constituted only part or a minority of local populations despite nationalist outrage at the fragmentation of Germany"

OK, I understand the first part, but what does "despite nationalist outrage at the fragmentation of Germany" mean? It looks like this bit was added by somebody who didn't bother reading the preceding part of the sentence. Some editing needed here, which I would do myself, but wikifascists will pounce on me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.193.249 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Reich or state?
To translate 'Reich' as 'Empire' is far too precise: it can indeed mean 'empire', but it also means 'realm', which is, I think, a far more accurate rendition for the Weimar Republic. White Guard 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not to translate it at all. Whenever it is necessary to use the official name say "Deutsches Reich" (with possibly an explanation), otherwise say Germany. Str1977 (smile back) 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My view also. White Guard 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See official use of "German Reich" in an official document (Kellogg-Briand Pact (AKA Pact of Paris)) on Talk:Deutsches Reich. --Orangerider 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely not call the Weimar Republic "German Reich" - it was at all the first try to establish a democracy, the term "Reich" comprises anything but democratic structures... to be honest I'm a little shocked to see this term used here with the Weimar Republic... there is an gap between the German Reich which is known as the "Kaiserreich" (up to 1918) and Hitler's Reich (from 1933) - the time in between may not be called "German Reich"!!! 188.107.224.192 (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)teegea


 * "Reich" was the contemporaneous name of the German state at the time. See e.g. the cover of the 1919 Weimar Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weimar_Constitution.jpg. So there is a good reason to use it here. Since the article is called "Weimar Republic" - which seems to be the most popular usage nowadays - I don't see a problem.Drow69 (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There must be an official name for Weimar Republic in the british and american documents concerning foreign affairs. I haven't found a consistent name for Germany jet. In many documents it was described as "German Government", but I also found "German Empire" and "German Reich". Maybe someone else has better access to those documents, like Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. I was not able to get the book in any library near me. Could someone look it up please? 87.161.5.48 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Name in info box on right-hand side
Why, in the info summary box on the right-hand side of the page, is the Weimar Repbulic referred to as the German Empire? Although what we would today call Germany was officially called the German Empire between 1918 and 1933, historians nowadays refer to it as the Weimar Republik (or Weimarer Republik) and seeing as this is the most widely-known term for the geographical entity being discussed on this page and it is indeed the name of the page, I maintain that one name for Germany is this period should be used consistently throughout. I therefore suggest that someone change 'Deutsches Reich/German Empire' to 'Weimarer Republik/Weimar Republic'.

--SaraFL (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In the info box should be the official name, because the name Weimar Repbulic was created ex post. The official name remains Deutsches Reich or German Empire, like in the article about Vichy France there is also French State/l'État français in the ifo box as the official name and in the article about Nazi Germany there is Greater German Reich/Großdeutsches Reich is the official name. 87.161.5.48 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Too long
This talk page is too long. Please, condense these topics into an archive. B.Lameira (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Everybody agreed on auto-archive after 60 days? --Boson (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, 40 topics is too much. It's a reasonable timespan. B.Lameira (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Since the coat of arms used toward the end of the Weimar Republic is the same as the coat of arms that is used by the modern Federal Republic of Germany, it seems sensible to follow German Wikipedia, and restore the different coat of arms used at the beginning of the Weimar Republic to identify that republic in the infobox. See The blazon of both coats of arms appears to be the same (as described by the president of the republic), and they were both used; so they can both be seen as "official". --Boson (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * de:Weimarer Republik (and the references given there)
 * Coat of arms of Germany.

The "Years of Crisis" sections needs dates and more sources
I think the "Years of Crisis" sections needs dates.

"In the next five years, the central government, assured of the support of the Reichswehr, dealt severely with the occasional outbreaks of violence in Germany's large cities. When? Where?

"The left claimed that the Social Democrats had betrayed the ideals of the revolution, while the army and the government-financed Freikorps committed hundreds of acts of gratuitous violence against striking workers. When? Where?

and why is this event not even mentioned:

"On 3 May 1919, loyal elements of the German army (called the “White Guards of Capitalism” by the communists), with a force of 9,000, and Freikorps (such as the Freikorps Epp and the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt) with a force of about 30,000 men, entered Munich and defeated the communists after bitter street fighting in which over 1,000 supporters of the Munich soviet government were killed. About 700 men and women were arrested and summarily executed by the victorious Freikorps troops. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.148.226 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Hitler's chancellorship (1933) is a mess
Does anyone know the history of the last paragraph of Hitler's chancellorship (1933)?

Until recently it had the figures 196+52 and somebody recently corrected this to 288+52. However, that conflicts with the beginning of the sentence, which has " the first cabinet meeting was attended by the two coalition parties, representing a minority in the Reichstag ". I would guess that the beginning of the sentence originally referred to a meeting in January (when 196 would have been correct), but it now seems to refer to a meeting in March. Something obviously went wrong somewhere, but I'm not sure what the various editors were actually trying to say. Whatever it was intended to say, I presume that the current version is not backed up by sources (since it is nonsense). Or have I missed something? --Boson (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Misleading/incorrect phrasing
The sentence about the Depression, "It led to the ascent of the nascent Nazi Party in 1933.", bothers me because (1) it sounds so positive—the Nazis didn't "ascend" (admittedly subjective), and (2) it is also untrue in that the Party was not "nascent" in 1933—it was nascent in the early 1920's.

Also, although we know that the Depression was a contributor to the Nazi seizure of power, should that be stated in so flatly an "x = y" presentation? Obviously, the disunity of the left and the center parties also contributed to the government's inability to stave off fascism.

Polemyx (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree; it is simplistic to claim, in a straightforward fashion, that the Depression caused the Nazi political victory. However, to your other point, I feel that the term "ascend" is neutral. Just as we say a party "rises" to power. Whether or not that's a good thing will be subjective, but it seems a standard way of describing the process of assuming political control. Aolivex (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree: Before the Great Depression starting in 1929 the Nazi party was hardly known by anyone with less than 3% of votes in the German federal election of 1928 (see election results of the Nazi Party). --Pass3456 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

learnings from weimarer verfassung failure
i would love to see Art 20 (4) GG as a 'learning' - a lack of the idea for a "self-defensing-democracy". It explicitly declares a "extra-statutory necessity", wherein ANY measure for defending democratic, constitutional principles might be legal. this is an important new idea after the ill-fated but perfectly "legal" dictatorship after 1933. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.57.190 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthem is Wrong
Although the anthem "Song of the Germans" is correct, only the third stanza is used in the audio file, which is incorrect an donly applies to the modern Bundesrepublik Deutschland. The Weimar Republic included all stanzas of the song.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 04:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
Today part of Belgium and the Netherlands? Sure? Which region exactly? 80.136.95.96 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

should it be Weimar Republic or Deutsches Reich or German Empire??
[copied from User talk:Rjensen I think that matter should probably be raised in some WikiProject to resolve that question. I can live with the compromise of just putting "Germany" there for now, even though I still strongly believe that giving the official name of the state is the way to go. I also disagree with the first sentence in the Weimar Republic article. It says it "is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state", which is not the case, the term describes a period, not a state. By international law, Germany during the Weimar Republic is the same state as it was since 1871 and as it was until 1945. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The official name was "Deutsches Reich" -the Germans used only the German language in official documents -- the English translation was never "official". Much worse: the English term is highly misleading to English language speakers (which is the audience for this Wikipedia). Cambridge English dictionaries say that "the Reich" is a standard term for Nazi period. Evans is very useful here: The continued use of the term 'German Empire', Deutsches Reich, by the Weimar Republic....conjured up an image among educated Germans that resonated far beyond the institutional structures Bismarck created: the successor to the Roman Empire; the vision of God's Empire here on earth;  the universality of its claim to suzerainty; and a more prosaic but no less powerful sense, the concept of a German state that would include all German speakers in central Europe--'one People, one Reich, one Leader', as the Nazi slogan was to put it."  Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides the points which Evans raises, "Reich" also has, or used to have, connotations of "realm". It's only comparatively recently that it more commonly came to mean "empire" in a rather more aggressive and perjorative sense.
 * Rjensen is quite right about this. I think this is a case where excessive pedantry is just going to be misleading to the general English-speaking reader. Pointing out that Wilhelm II's title was actually "German Emperor" not "Emperor of Germany" is not going to confuse anybody. Referring to the Weimar Republic as the German "Reich" is just going to confuse people. I'll leave others to argue about the legal niceties of the paragraph explaining that it was technically still the "Reich".Paulturtle (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are worried about confusing the reader with the word "Reich", then surely the appropriate action is to have an explanatory footnote, not dumb-down the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Weimar Republic" is the standard, non-controversial term used by practically all our RS. It needs no footnote, but the alternative terms are indeed confusing and hard to explain. Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Deutschlandlied.ogg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wappen Deutsches Reich (Weimarer Republik).svg

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) 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deutschlandlied (1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler).ogg

"remained that of the German Reich from the German Empire"
I don't understand the use of the word "from" in this phrase. I'd understand "or", but am hesitant to correct it because I don't understand the issues. Either way, the current wording is baffling and needs to be clarified. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "from" here means "as it was ": "The official name of the republic remained that of the German Reich from as it was during the German Empire ..." OTOH, Deutscher Volksstaat had never widespread currency and should be removed from the lead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good edit, . --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sexual degeneracy
Why is there no mention of the sexual degeneracy that took place during this time period? Child prostitution, public sexual acts, etc. ? I can only imagine the reasons as to why, but seems like its an important part of history. 174.255.65.156 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from adding it to this article. Pickelhaube103 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Changes to opening paragraphs; more work
I made several edits to the article's lead. I focused on factual accuracy, natural-sounding English, and readability.

As an ongoing project, more citations and links might be useful. I intend to continue trying to improve this article, and any suggestions or helpful edits would be great. Karl Bildungshunger1965 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
, see the recent edits, would you please help us out? What is to be done here? Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
 * What is to be done is to immediately stop WP:edit warring. Next step is to read carefully WP:consensus and Wp:BRD. Third step is to discuss the issue on the talk page and try to reach consensus.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * well, for my part I know all of these, the guideline says the article has to be consistent, which is now currently not. I kindly as editors to express opinions, should the article written in American English or British English?
 * well, for my part I know all of these, the guideline says the article has to be consistent, which is now currently not. I kindly as editors to express opinions, should the article written in American English or British English?


 * Support American English.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

This is not an opinion poll about what variety of English is our favorite. It's about supporting Wikipedia guidelines, which on this topic are clear: I went through the article history, sampling versions of the article, going back one year, picking versions near mid-month, and examining them. In every case, British usage far outweighed American usage in the past year.
 * Consistency within articles demands that the same variety be used throughout the article. Currently, this is not the case as both AE and BE are used, and this must be fixed, to pick one or the other.
 * There is no policy-preference in this article which would mandate a particular variety of English, as there are no strong national ties to either AE or BE. If there were such a thing as "Weimar English", then that would be the one we would have to use; but there isn't.
 * Given that MOS:TIES does not apply here, the default decision-maker is MOS:RETAIN, which says: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary.

Taking the opposite approach, I went back to the beginning (in 2001!) and found that the article developed slowly, with no particular trend in usage for a few years. By 2006, a pattern had emerged. Looking at revision 39649719 of February 14, 2006, here's what I found: Although usage in this article has always been mixed, it seems to me, that by 2006 there was a strong trend towards BE, that has been maintained ever since, with the AE variety never in the clear majority afaict. According to MOS:RETAIN, therefore, and MOS:ARTCON, all remaining occurrences of AE spelling should be regularized to standard BE, and a use British English should be placed near the top of the article (see MOS:ORDER for placement), and template British English should be added to the Talk page header. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AE: 10 – marginalizing, organized, criticized, radicalize, authorized, favor (x 2), center (x 3)
 * BE: 30 – demobilised, symbolised, modelled, pretence, offence, favour, labour (x 5), centre (x 19)


 * The template British English has been added above. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)