Talk:West Germany/Archive 1

West Germany
I am uneasy that the title of this page is West Germany, when this was purely an Anglophonic euphamism. The proper name (before and after reunification) is Bundesrepublic Deutschland which translates to English as 'Federal Republic of Germany'.--Timdownie 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * there is a corresponding article on the German wiki, which deals more with the various usages of the term. Agathoclea 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have an article Federal Republic of Germany which redirects to Germany. (It's pretty much standard that an article with the official name of a state redirects to the article with the "everyday" name of the state - compare United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which redirects to United Kingdom). The article Germany is about the modern state of Germany (and also its predecessor states) and carries lots of info re: the history of the FRG; this article is quite clearly about the term "West Germany" and its usage in English. Valiantis 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first poster (see below). Whilst this article does provide context about (the former) West Germany, it needs to be remembered that the West German state absorbed the East German state, whilst continuing to exist. It is thus the same country. (RM21 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Accordingly moved to Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990), which is proper, but I think Germany (1949-1990) is better. The GDR did not even call itself Germany, and in hindsight does not quite deserve to be a reason why the 11-state FRG of 1949-1990 should not be regarded as "the Germany". After all, we call the 16-state FRG now Germany, even though the area is still smaller than in former times. -- Matthead discuß!    O       05:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the context of the below discussion "POV or fact" I'll add another comment here because it's really about the same subject.


 * The GDR called itself "Deutsch" and many of its official institutions contained the term "Deutschland" in their names. For the first two decades of its existance, East Germany viewed itself as a German national state, it strived for reunification by incorporating West Germany into the GDR, and claimed to represent "the true Germany". The interpretations of the two Germanies were symmetrical, at the same time mutually exclusive. There's no reason to present one of the two views as "more true" than the other. From a broader perspective the symmetry is the most striking feature.


 * For completeness sake: The GDR changed its view completely since the early 1970s, that's when the symmetry ended. Anorak2 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree to this renaming of the lemma. In 1949-1990 Germany [as a whole] in its borders of 1937 consisted of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG during 1949-1990) and the German Democratic Republic. Both were German states and international legal personalities, but there was only one Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany from 1949-1990 was part-identical to the German Reich because of the field of application of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and geographical scope. By the German reunification, the Federal Republic, accreted by its territory, became subject identical to the German Reich (= Germany as a whole).
 * That symmetry could not ever be changed because the German Reich never ceased to exist! There's no evidence in history or international law that claimed, the German Reich ended and two new states and international legal personalities whould be established. --Orangerider 08:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Infobox and categories
The template Infobox Former Country and the categories Former countries in Europe, Former federations, Former republics and 1990 disestablishments are misleading, because the Federal Republic of Germany still exists. It wasn't disestablished in 1990. "West Germany" was only the unofficial name of the Federal Republic until 1990. In 1990 East Germany joined the Federal Republic, but this really doesn't mean that the Federal Republic was disestablished. Blinder Seher 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge to article 'Germany'
This article should merge with the current Germany article. This is because at one time, there were two articles: West Germany, and East Germany. Neither of these had the correct name of the country in the title, and the West Germany article was renamed, and expanded; later the East Germany article was also renamed.

It also needs to be remembered that the West German state (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) absorbed the East German state, under the relevant section of the Grundgesetz, so the German state continued in existence, right to the present day. (RM21 20:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Red Army / Soviet Army
Hello,

"Red Army" was officially renamed "Soviet Army" in 1946 !

WernerE, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.244.28 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2005 (UTC)

GDR
We don't use terms like "Middle Germany" and "German Democratic Republic" in English and this is the English Wikipedia. PMA 22:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Cassell's Dictionary of Modern German History" uses "German Democratic Republic" ("the formal name of the East German state of 1949-90") as does Mary Fulbrook's "20th Century Germany", and Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004 gives the translation of "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" as "German Democratic Republic", with no mention of "East Germany". Saintswithin 09:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is outrageous that PMA, a person with apparently no knowledge of Germany, is being allowed to vandalize this page and protect the vandalized version.

Haso, Germany in 1800s ???
I am doing research on my German ancestors. The surname is BUECHNER. I think they may have been from the Oldenburgh, area of Germany (Niedersachsen). When they emigrated to the USA in 1853, the ship list said that they were from "Haso" Germany/Prussia. Can anyone tell me where this little village is? Is it still a village today?

Hi Oldenburgh is likely to be Oldenburg a town near Bremen. It is next to the river Hunte. Look into wikipedia german version. Stone 09:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"BRD"
It is not correct that in West Germany the abbrevation "BRD" was used. "BRD" is GDR jargon. Therefore the use of this abbrevation was avoided in the West. (It was e.g. marked as error in school), see detailed explanation in German []. It can be seen that this is the only time when German officials interfered whith the common use of language. After unification the abbrevation is more common. If someone can formulate that in proper english that would be fine.

Being (native West) German myself, I must object to the above paragraph. The acronym "BRD" was  used heavily in West Germany (much more than it is in use today, after reunification), sometimes in the pair of opposites (BRD v. DDR, as explained in the Wikipedia article), sometimes with a somewhat derogatory meaning from "leftwingers" in a broader sense (people critical of the political system at the time, which defined itself as "so very different from the DDR system" but then at times used similarly oppressive measures against "dissidents" - "Schweinestaat"). In my personal opinion, the latter use expressed an exaggeration: While West German politics did show signs of oppression, mostly to protect political and economical interests, it no means ever closely resembled the repressive DDR system and/or regime. Funnily enough, in "modern" neoliberal discussion [as of 2002 and following years] market-liberals liken the "old" BRD to the DDR for its alleged lack of "market freedom" and for offering "too much" governmental welfare. Well, what can I say - neoliberals are stoneage morons. --62.138.56.98 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with both - There was considerable use of BRD amongst the people of West-Germany, but the offical line was still not to use it as it would give official sanctioning of GDR as a seperate state. Agathoclea 12:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should clarify for the English speakers that the discouragement of the term "BRD" is an example of political correctnes, in this case though not from the "left wing". Here's some history:


 * All politics aside, "BRD" is the obvious way to abbreviate "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" in German. It has been used in West German media in the 1950s, even though it is admittedly not "official". At the same time, East German media avoided the official name of the Federal Republic altogether, instead they used the term "Westdeutschland".


 * About in the mid-1960s the GDR changed their policy. They started to use the abbreviation "BRD" and dropped the previously used "Westdeutschland". This was probably motivated in order to suggest a symmetry between the two German states (BRD vs DDR).


 * The West German media reacted to this by gradually dropping "BRD" and using the full name, or alternative ways of abbreviating ("Bundesrepublik", "BR Deutschland", "BR Dtl" or other). "Left leaning" people embraced "BRD" though.


 * In the 1970s and 80s, West German schools discouraged the use of "BRD", sometimes the use of this abbreviation was counted as a mistake and resulted in bad marks. The reasons stated differed. Often it was argued that "BRD" is not an official name (true, but so what?). But often the reason stated was "BRD" was GDR usage (most probably the real motivation, but not entirely true, and even then so what ..).


 * Since reunification, the avoidance of "BRD" has mostly become a thing of the past. You can now use the abbreviation "BRD" in public without being suspected of being a GDR sympathiser for the simple fact that there is no GDR any more. As the need for distinction between the two stated does not exist any more, "Deutschland" is now more common though. :)

Anorak2 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice summary, Anorak. I also remember the "Sponti" slogan, "Wer ARD sagt muss auch BRD sagen." ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever mentioned the "Bananenrepublik Deutschland" a term that got used in the 80s a lot. Agathoclea 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Berlin
I have removed the reference to Berlin as de-jure capital. Firstly is was not a factual sentence - The "Basic Law" (bad translation btw for Grundgesetz) did not mention the capital at all (I spend all morning reading the pre-unification version I had lying around) also the close votes for Bonn and later the move to Berlin in '91 would have never allowed a constitutional change (I believe 2/3 majority is needed for those). Also checking the publications I have available here made no reference to Berlin but only to the term "provisional capital" (vorläufige Bundeshauptstadt) see "Gründung des neuen Staates 1949" published by the Bavarian Goverment pages 104-110.

The details of that though are more for the history article and not here. Agathoclea 12:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * scary that the statement that has been on here only since last September has made it in all sorts of  wiki-mirrors. See Bundeshauptstadt Bonn - Die Entscheidung für Bonn und die Folgen für den Föderalismus in Deutschland for reasons why Berlin could not be capital. Agathoclea 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original poster. I was told by a tour guide and a school teacher that a nifty bit of trivia was that the official capital of West Germany was actually Berlin, even though the seat of government was in Bonn and there was (for rather obvious reasons) no actual government situated there.  It was, as they said, capital only as a technicality. 64.9.61.193 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't believe anything tour guides tell you :). Bonn was the capital of West Germany, even though its character was "provisional" in the sense that they hoped reunification would come soon and that Berlin would then once again become capital. But Berlin had no official capital status within West Germany. There was no law (constitution or otherwhise) which said so. Anorak2 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

.de redirect - wrong
the de.wikipedia redirect goes to article about geographical area "western germany", not to the article about the old Federal Republic (as is the en.wikipedia article)... 199.64.72.252 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

map
Can we get the map to have it include West Berlin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgt Simpson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Strictly speaking West Berlin was not a part of West Germany. Agathoclea 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Federal Republic of Germany regarded Berlin as a federal state of West Germany since 1949 (see Artikel 23 GG). Blinder Seher 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No they did not. See "Berlin" above.--ospalh (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well add it then 72.197.166.40 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminology and map
"This image shows the Cold War alliances of Europe, with NATO in blue and the Warsaw Pact in red." Perhaps "of Europe and Turkey", or "of Europe and Asia Minor" would demonstrate more terminological exactitude.

194.46.226.41 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
I have requested this page be moved back to West Germany on WP:RM as the current name is not the most common name for this territory in the relevant timeframe. Having the article at West Germany is not questioning that it is the legal direct predecessor to the current Germany (and indeed this should be clear in the text); it does not change the fact, however, that by far the most common name in English language publications for this piece of land in the relevant timeframe is West Germany. The current title also uses a non-standard disambiguation. Thirdly, the move should have been performed through the framework of WP:RM, and not on the basis of Talk:Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990) three comments above from over a year ago (which don't even all agree!). Comparing the "what links here" pages for the current page and for West Germany makes the case clear. Knepflerle 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I moved it back. Although this was a good-faith move, the article has sat at "West Germany" for a long time, and there's nothing "misleading" or "informal" (see WP:COMMON) about the name; the proposed dismbiguation title, I think, would not garner a great deal of support. (In fact, German Democratic Republic really ought to be at East Germany.) Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article talks about the history of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1990 and needs to be named accordingly. East Germany redirects to the proper German Democratic Republic also. West Germany might be very common, but it is also informal and sloppy, and worst of all, is still commonly misunderstood as having being a different state that does not exist anymore. This was shown in discussions like Talk:West Germany national football team and Articles for deletion/West Germany national football team, e.g. in "Uwe Seeler, Franz Beckenbauer and Gerd Muller never played for Germany, they played for West Germany" or "West Germany and Germany were two different countries at one point" -- Matthead discuß!    O       22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, ProhibitOnions, for proving my point. The summary of your move (moved Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990) to West Germany: Nice try, but move w/o discussion, and there's nothing wrong with the name "West Germany" -- the German article is at Westdeutschland) reveals a lack of understanding. de:Westdeutschland is a disambig page about the geographical and political uses of West Germany. I had created a similar stub which you deleted with admin powers. The German equivalent to the current article here (about FRG '49-'90) is at de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1990), the interwiki used there is History of Germany since 1945. Sorry, but this article here is a POV fork and needs to be moved&merged, not matter how common "West Germany" is used - or misused. -- Matthead discuß!    O       22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a totally different issue to the article title. Agathoclea 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No freaking way this article should move. West Germany should be its own article, as East Germany should. The fact that this article has been around for so long, do you really think that you are the first one to think about moving it? When it was not even 1/10 of its glory, people wanted to move it, but it never happened because it deserves to be its own article. 202.132.6.219 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I agree with the move that was made. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support return to West Germany per WP:COMMON. --Reuben 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

West Germany and East Germany, which officially ceased to exist?
West Germany and East Germany, which officially ceased to exist? --SuperTank17 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These kind of questions, and the quotes I gave in the section above, really show the need for clarification of the 1949-1990 part of German history. The use of West Germany in articles needs to be reduced, and this article moved to a more appropriate name.-- Matthead discuß!    O       05:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * East Germany aka GDR ceased to exist. West Germany aka FRG was from that time onward called Germany in the English media. Agathoclea 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about GDR's army? Was all it's equipment of that time passed over to the FRG's army?


 * National People's Army see text next to image of Tata-813 Agathoclea 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Could we sketch out a new introduction here, perhaps? At the moment we have barrage of naming, then bit of history, then something about continuation of institutions, then history, then institutions again... we start off with mentioning 1990, then 1957 mentioning Saarland but not explaining its role, then the Cold War, mention the founding but not the names of the states involved (possibly the crucial point of the intro) then back to fifties history. It's an informative but disorganised mess. Any thoughts on a rewrite - the essential points and the ordering of the material? It would be nice to have input before changing the most-read section of a high-profile article Knepflerle 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sufficient to explain that West Germany was a common name for the FR of Germany in the Cold War era from 1949 to 1990 before GDR states acceded. Add a map and some links that are relevant for the time (Berlin wall etc.) and you are done. All history has to be covered in History of Germany since 1945 anyway, no need to maintain a fork here. As stated repeatedly, West Germany was neither a former nor a separate state from the FR of Germany. NATO and EU have expanded also, but nobody claims they have vanished while doing so. Most countries in Eastern Europe have changed more dramatically even if their borders stayed the same. -- Matthead discuß!    O       13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the article needs a re-write. PMA 10:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

POV or facts?
Orangerider has made a couple of edits in the last hours which seem to be pushing the same POV as Matthead. Both appear to be saying that "West Germany" was identical with "Germany", and the arguments used to push this seem very awkward to say the least. Recently he's even reverted my attempts to remove his POV and present a more neutral wording (of facts which I otherwhise don't dispute). This method of POV pushing reminds me of what routinely goes on in the German wikipedia, so far I thought that the English wikipedia was free of it. :(

IMHO their arguments sound like a lame excuse for the common usage of "Germany" when referring to West Germany only that many West Germans used. But it is really a form of ignorance because it neglects the fact that other parts of Germany existed. (People not living in Germany at the time will probably not be awar of this usage and the ignorance associated with it, but you can take my word for it that it existed). Anorak2 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, I've altered the headline. Besides, you call facts, which are inconvenient to you and/or others, POV.-- Matthead discuß!    O       19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, your idea that "West Germany is Germany" or whatever is not a fact but a rather bizarre POV. The political view of the West German government or judicial decisions of West German courts are worth referring, as long as you present them as viewpoints in a political struggle which had more than one side, and not as undisputable "facts" which they are not. (Maybe this article is not the right place to present this struggle, I think a better place would be articles about specific issues in the cold war, but I'm tolerant there). However please refrain from drawing the conclusions you wish to draw from them. Besides the government's views were political, but your POV is rather cultural, as evidenced in your above comparison with the USA's expansion. Anorak2 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statement is POV! West Germany is the very same state as the German Reich and therefore identical. All sources in jurisprudence corroborate that. The POV of brain washed Ossis and the official view of the ex-German Democratic Republic as a totalitarian and inhuman state is not relevant! Show me an official paper in international law that disproves the prevailing opinion. --Orangerider 22:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point.


 * First of all I reject the idea that this discussion should be limited to judicial interpretation. "West Germany" is an informal name - thus discussions of judicial formalities are of lower prioritiy - for a former state and a former cultural and geographic entity. It ought to be discussed in this framework. Remember the title page of "Der Spiegel" from 1990: "Preis der Einheit: Das Ende der Bundesrepublik"? This was not a judicial statement about the continuity of the Federal Republic as a formal entity (of course the Spiegel authors knew that the latter wouldn't come to an end) but a comment about the cultural, economic, social framework of what constituted the old West Germany and an expression of fear that it might be in danger. This is what the term "West Germany" is about.


 * Second your interpretation of "international law" is a bit one sided. Internatonal law is a fuzzy and difficult field to begin with. There is no international legislation, no international executive and no univerally accepted international court, it's just a number of mutual agreements who cannot really be enforced if one side decides to break them. At the end of the day they rest on mutual trust.


 * Regarding our subject, there is no "paper in international law" at all from pre-1990 that defines the legal status of Germany or any of its parts, because there was disagreement between the relevant parties. So there shouldn't be statements in this article who suggest otherwhise. We can present the POVs of the parties involved, but we have to describe them as POVs and not facts.


 * The jurisprudence of one country cannot unilaterally interpret international law, they merely interpret their domestic laws (in this case: West German court interpreted the West German Grundgesetz) which have no international relevance as such because they're not agreements among several countries, but unilateral declarations of one country. There are lots of sources - mostly from the eastern block - who interpret the legal status of Germany and its parts completely different than West German courts did. Of course the eastern sources are equally unilateral and therefore equally void, but their existance proves the fact that there was disagreement and that the West German position was merely one POV among several. If you need quotes, remind me please, I'll deliver them.


 * Third, your wording "brainwashed ossis" proves that you are biased and a bit arrogant, and that you wish to ignore POVs different from your own. The fact that East Germany was a dictatorship does not disprove the fact that its POV existed, which is all that matters. It is a fact, the POV existed, and this alone makes it relevant. You don't have to be an ossi to recognize this, and even if you are that does not disprove it. Besides I'm not an ossi, but I detect ignorant wessi viewpoints when I see one. Anorak2 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The German Reich never ceased to exist. Therefore, there could never be a successor - neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor the GDR. --Orangerider 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is that important? Who cares? Is that all you have to say? The problem is that you and Matthead are constantly attacking the concept of "West Germany" and pretend that it was identical with "Germany". That implies East Germany and Berlin were not part of "Germany" before 1990. Do you realise that's an inflammatory position? Anorak2 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't imply and nobody claims that East Germany and Berlin wouldn't be part of "Germany" before 1990. --Orangerider 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)




 * There was no symmetry between West Germany and East Germany, no matter what the sloppy use of these two informal names suggest. Already in 1953, the GDR forfeited any rights to be treated equally with the FR of Germany, by killing hundreds during the Uprising of 1953 in East Germany. The mass exodus of thousands of East Germans to the FR of Germany could only be stopped by more force, erecting the Berlin Wall as another monument of the failure of the socialist experiment with millions of humans. Shortly after the USSR openly discontinued the support of the SED government, the East Germans toppled these commies. As soon as international politics allowed, the GDR residents mopped up the remainder of that state, pretty much like pushing a wrecked Trabant to the junk yard before climbing into the comfy back seat of the family-owned Mercedes-Benz. That Mercedes-Benz had been crashed by a reckless driver in 1918, with parts and passengers getting lost, and wrecked in 1945 by an even more reckless driver, with more parts and passengers getting lost. The remaining passengers in 1949 rebuild the car as a smaller, quieter and environmental friendlier one, only to be driven by careful drivers from now on. In 1990, some of the missing family members lost in 1949 were found hitchhiking by the road side, as the little car they were forced to assemble was beyond repair - one day in 1961, they even had been surrounded by a garage so close to the doors that they could not get out for decades. They were picked up, and the Mercedes-Benz was quickly turned into a stretch-limo to accommodate the whole family in style. Since 3 October 1990, that car is regarded by everyone as true Mercedes-Benz, yet some people insist that from 1945 to 1990, it has to be called Wartburg 353 as it was like the Trabant 601, only a little larger and with more passengers. -- Matthead discuß!    O       04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting increasingly silly. So far I was under the impression that Orangerider and Matthead had the same axe to grind, but apparently there are differences. Orangerider does not claim that East Germany and Berlin were not part of Germany, but I think Matthead does indeed claim that, at least hasn't disclaimed it. Of course that idea is complete bullshit, mildly put.


 * The symmetry I mentioned earlier refers to the claims of both German governments to reunification under their respective regimes by incorporating the other state into their own. This is true, look it up. Your response does not even address this point, what the hell do car brands have to do with any of it?


 * None of what I stated above is a political position or a moral judgement of East Germany, just statements of facts that both of you ignore. With your decidedly political responses both of you are barking up the wrong tree, I'm not interested in such a discussion. However both of you appear to have political axes (perhaps also "cultural superiority axes") to grind, and I must ask you to stop it as long as you're editing articles. Anorak2 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already written it but I will it explain in German because of phrasing the circumstances:
 * Laut Grundlagenvertrag waren zum damaligen Zeitpunkt sowohl die DDR als auch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Staaten und als solche gemäß der Dreielementenlehre auch Völkerrechtssubjekte. Da aber das Deutsche Reich niemals untergegangen ist bzw. nicht aufhörte, zu existieren, kann sich auch nicht die DDR als Nachfolgestaat behaupten, was sie aber ab 1970 - oder auch schon früher mit der zweiten DDR-Verfassung - tat. Aufgrund diesen Sachverhalts fusst die politische Meinung der DDR-Führung sowie der UdSSR, vgl. Zwei-Staaten-Theorie, auf einer bewiesenen Unwahrheit. Laut dem Postdamer Abkommen sowie der Erklärung der Siegermächte bezüglich der Niederlage Deutschlands und der Übernahme der Regierungshoheit über das okkupierte Gebiet bestand Deutschland als Ganzes in den Grenzen vom 31. Dezember 1937 fort, und ist weder mit der bedingungslosen Kapitulation der Wehrmacht (was einer militärischen Kapitulation und nicht der Kapitulation des Deutschen Reiches gleichkam), noch mit der Regierungsübernahme durch die Militärgouverneure und später die Hohen Kommissare im Allierten Kontrollrat untergegangen.
 * Zitat: „Das Deutsche Reich in seiner historischen Gestalt ist spätestens mit der bedingungslosen Kapitulation aller Streitkräfte vom 7. und 8. Mai 1945 institutionell vollständig zusammengebrochen. Seine damals noch vorhandenen Organe und sonstigen staatsrechtlichen Strukturen sind im Mai 1945 auf allen Ebenen endgültig weggefallen, an ihre Stelle sind in den folgenden Jahren, zuletzt durch die deutsche Wiedervereinigung vom 3. Oktober 1990, neue, durch allgemeine Wahlen historisch und rechtlich uneingeschränkt legitimierte Strukturen getreten.“ (Amtsgericht Duisburg: NJW 2006, S. 3577; Rechtsprechungsdatenbank des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen; Az: 46 K 361/04)
 * Somit waren in der Zeit von 1949-1990 beide deutsche Staaten Teil Deutschlands als Ganzem (Germany as a whole), was im 2+4-Vertrag bekräftigt wurde; das vereinigte Deutschland sollte in diesem völkerrechtlichen Vertrag auf Ansprüche auf Gebiete östlich der Oder-Neiße-Linie verzichten und die gegenwärtigen Grenzen in Europa anerkennen, was Voraussetzung für eine Zustimmung der Alliierten war, dass diese fort an auf ihre Vorbehaltsrechte verzichten, und auch durch den Deutsch-Polnischen Grenzvertrag zwischen der deutschen Bundesregierung und der polnischen Regierung in Anbetracht der Wahrung des Friedens in Europa bestätigt wurde.
 * Durch die Deutsche Wiedervereinigung (German reunification) wurde die Bundesrepublik Deutschland aufgrund des Beitritts der DDR zum Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes, wodurch die ostdeutschen Länder Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurden, völkerrechtlich vollidentisch zum Deutschen Reich. --Orangerider 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1974 Football World Cup pos.jpg
Image:1974 Football World Cup pos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirection
Shouldn't "Federal Republic of Germany" redirect to "Germany" instead of this article ? This is still the country's official name. Wedineinheck 10:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but occasionally it got redirected here anyway. -- Matthead Discuß   01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Army Faction
The RAF part of the article has been changed numerous times to include the world "terrorist". Please fight it out here instead of continuing to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.132.6.251 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what are they supposed to be, Care bears ? Wedineinheck 12:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Independent West Germany?
"During the Cold War period ...the Federal Republic as the largest democratic and ONLY INDEPENDENT German state had claimed exclusive mandate for all of Germany, ..."

That is not truth! See article "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" and "Allied Control Council". Quote: "Germany remained under nominal military occupation until 12 September 1990, when the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, the final peace treaty, was signed by the four powers and the two German governments, restoring German sovereignty. This meant the official end of the Allied Control Council, insofar as it still existed at all." If a land is occupied and controlled (even it´s nominal) by foreign forces you can´t call it independent, right? Could anyone registered change this please?

Michael (native (east) german) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.243.55 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was as independent as East Germany, but it is wrong however, to state, one was more or less independent than the other at the same period. -- Arne List (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "As independent as East Germany?" is equal to "as alive as Elvis" - some want to believe in such legends, while to most it is utter nonsense. Besides, I do not recall US tanks suppressing demonstrations in West Germany or West Berlin against Vietnam, Pershings or nuclear power stations . Do you? -- Matthead Discuß   13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Independence is only meaningful for former colonies. Germany never was a colony in any meaningful sense of the word, so the concept is void and it should not be mentioned in this article. Anorak2 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another point is that East Germany also claimed an exclusive mandate for all of Germany part of the time. Anorak2 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The GDR leaders claimed a lot of things, e.g. in June 1961 that "nooobody has the intention of erecting a wall". And when it was built, it was claimed to be an "antifascist protection wall". At the end, they closed their borders to all of their few neighbors. The government of the GDR was never legitimately elected, their stance was only listened to as long as they, with Soviet help, could control the fate of 15+ million people. There was no symmetry between FR Germany and GDR, the commie state was inferior in all moral, political, economical and other categories, except Olympic medals. -- Matthead Discuß   13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone's political interpretation of cold war mechanics are irrelevant to the question at hand. The only thing that matters is: Did East Germany at any point in time claim exclusive mandate for all of Germany? Answer: YES. Therefore the claim that West Germany was the only entity who ever did so is wrong and should be deleted. Anorak2 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the first question of independence by 88.73.243.55 is simple. There were heated debates within West Germany in the early 1950s of whether the country should pursue an Austria-like neutrality in exchange for instant reunification, such as Kurt Schumacher from the SPD, or push reunification aside and consolidate West Germany in the Western camp Konrad Adenauer. Had West Germany not got that independence, this debate would not exist in the first place. --JNZ (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VWgermany.jpg
Image:VWgermany.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

International licence plate
I undid this edit for the following reason:

East Germany used the international licence plate "D" until 1974 *). Matthead's version makes it sound as if keeping the "D" and other (unnamed) "traditions" were a defining feature of West Germany and that it was so from its beginning in 1949. Even though it's true that in 1989 West Germany had the "D" and East Germany had "DDR", that wasn't true all the time.

East Germany kept formalities that hinted at a continuing German nation until the early 1970s because their goal was reunification until then. They dropped many of those features after that time, because they gave up reunification as a goal around that time. This is certainly important and interesting for wikipedia readers, but then it ought to be presented in all its detail, but not as a defining feature of West Germany (because it isn't), and maybe not even in this article (because it has little to do with West Germany in the first place).

Anorak2 (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ) PS: German readers maybe aware of the television programme "Kennzeichen D" on ZDF. It was a political programme about East and West German issues. The name was chosen because - at the time of its foundation in 1971 - the licence plate "D" was still common to both Germanies, thus a visual link and a symbol for the concept of the programme.

West Germany and East Germany
I know this subject is disputed from the left-leaning parts of the then West German and today's German population, but it was a fact that the Federal Republic of Germany never treated the GDR as a completely separate foreign country. Yes, it recognized East Germany on a de facto basis, but unlike many other countries of the world, still considered that there was only One German nation - and there were two governments under that single nation. For example, the West German foreign minister never met his East German counterparts (which was broken by Hans-Dietrich Genscher in September 1989 when he met his East German counterpart Oskar Fischer in New York in settling the issue of letting the refugees/defectors stranded in Prague out to West Germany. By the time die Wende was already starting and the Berlin Wall would fall within 50 days, so this breakthrough was of course rendered academic). Secondly, the EC treated East Germany as a "special" customs zone with the European Community because of West Germany's position that East Germany was never quite a separate country.

I'm quite sure that had the events in 1989 not occured or at a much more gradual pace, looking at the trends in West Germany up to 1988, the political and intellectual circles in West Germany would probably have created a powerful impetus for the Federal Republic to fully recognize East Germany as a completely separate foreign country by the mid 1990s, and treating the relationships to the GDR as akin to Switzerland or Austria. Of course 1989 derailed all these points and thus makes everything largely an academic topic of interest. --JNZ (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All kind of embarassing things were uttered by politicians and intellectuals before and even after the wall fell. Luckily, the people made clear to their "leaders" in East and West what they wanted - and that was unity in freedom, as an enlarged FR Germany, and not more experiments and cheap talk. The history of the GDR was ended, while "West" Germany still exists, with more states, just like the number of US states grew, like in the late 1950s when Alaska and Hawaii joined. -- Matthead Discuß   13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely correct and I agree with this. Had the post-1990 reunified Germany been created as a clean slate basis there would be a new constitution from scratch.  They could duplicate the whole government structure of the pre-reunification Federal Republic but call the post-October 1990 caretaker government as a "Provisional Government of the Federal Republic of Germany", and then calling a constitutional convention, ratifying a formal constitution, holding a new election nationally on a clean slate, and even changing the name of the country to something like "The State of Germany" afterwards etc.  This was not the case and so as far as the state is concerned today's Germany is West Germany continued.  --JNZ (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Today's Germany is exacly the same German state since 1867, beginning with the North German Confederation (in 1866 it was only a confederation by the northern German states [mainly Prussia], but in 1867 it became a state by a constitution!). At that time a few years later, in 1871, the southern German states like Bavaria or Wurttemberg did exactly the same like the GDR did in 1990: they acceded to the German federation to form the whole German nation-state: Germany.
 * The only difference between 1871 and 1990 is, that in 1990 the GDR was already [and everytime since 1949] part of the German nation, simply known as "Germany as a whole". --Orangerider (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe many other countries contest this view, and considered that the Federal Republic of Germany during the division period and the GDR collectively constitute the German Reich as a whole, but neither on its own was fully one, or alternatively simply the German Reich had become divided into two. This is why there are confusions in many countries as to whether today's Germany is the West German state continuing since 1949, or is the successor state to West Germany i.e. Germany as a collective state only came into being again in 1990 after disappearing in 1945.  --JNZ (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonn republic
Nowadays the old West Germany is also called the 'Bonner Republik' (Bonn republic, like Weimar republic) while the reunited Federal Republic of Germany is also called the 'Berliner Republik' (Berlin republic)

Weimar republic (German Reich) 1918-1933 Bonn republic (Federal republic of Germany/West Germany) 1949-1990 Berlin republic (Federal republic of Germany/Reunited Germany) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.192.137 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also heard a much less common label of 'First Republic' for the Weimar Republic, and 'Second Republic' for the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to today. --JNZ (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Weimar Republic" is the common name in most historical text books for that period. Apparently there's some scientific consensus for that wording.


 * "Bonn Republic" and "Berlin Republic" are (so far) merely media coinages which aren't backed up by usage in the scientifc literature. Therefore I'd say these wordings should not be portrayed as comparable. Anorak2 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Germany and Poland borders during the 20th century.gif


This map is very confusing, to say the least. It tells us that a certain area (allegedly northeatern Europe) consists of several regions, some of them dark, some light grey. But what exactly is the meaning of all this? -- megA (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The darker gray areas are the current territories of Germany and Poland, since 1991.


 * The lighter gray areas correspond to the territories that were officialy part of Germany and Poland during the 20th century, but are not anymore since 1991.


 * The white lines are the anachronous sobreposition of all borders that existed between the former “incarnations” of Germany, Poland and adjacent territories between the period before the border changes of World War I and the end of the Cold War:


 * • German Empire / Congress Poland / Austria-Hungary
 * • Weimar Republic / Second Polish Republic / Free City of Danzig
 * • West Germany / West Berlin / East Germany / People's Republic of Poland
 * • Reunified Germany / Poland / Russia’s Kaliningrad oblast / Lithuania / Belarus / Ukraine


 * --MaGioZal (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. You know it, and I know it. Nevertheless, this isn't in any way informative, since no explanation is provided as to which border or territory belongs to which nation at which time. In this state, this is just a jumble of random lines and one big dark grey areas and some lighter grey areas. Frankly, I think it should go. -- megA (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the map is helpful. I added a legend and numbered the ares to describe the territorial changes.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
Berlin—Part of West Germany?

While the Grundgesetz may have define all of Berlin (Großberlin) as a federal state, Berlin, and especially West-Berlin had very clearly a special status in the Federal Republic of Germany. (No draft, no voting Members of the Bundestag.) Something like "in der Bunedsrepublik Deutschland und West-Berlin" was a common phrase in official documents, indicating that West-Berlin was distinct from West-Germany. I think there should be a whole section on Berlin. Unfortunately I don't think I'm up to it.--ospalh (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The section de:West-Berlin of the German Wikipedia could be a starting point.--ospalh (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or West Berlin...--ospalh (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we specify the area of West Germany in the infobox?
area of West Germany was 248,688 km2, as can be computed by from areas of Germany and East Germany published in wikipedia 357,021 - 108,333 = 248,688 km2. I tried writing it into the infobox using parameter stat_area1, but unfortunately this resulted in some weird exception being output as the population density. I hope somebody could find a way to fix this in order to display the area statistic. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

misleading introduction?
I read this article and immediately saw a confusing introduction. The first paragraph states "From 1990 onwards, the Federal Republic of Germany has been exclusively known as Germany." No, the Federal Republic of Germany is still the Federal Republic of Germany. Maybe it was meant to read "After 1990, the offical name of West Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany, was used as the official name for the reunified Germany." Chergles (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much this article is in a little limbo between facts and perceived facts. What we do know for sure is that in general usage the term "West Germany" was used for the Federal Republic of Germany until the unification. Since then it has been called Germany but is still the same (albeit a little larger) Federal Republic. Agathoclea (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we fix this? We don't want a student to write a report saying "In 1990, the name of Germany was changed from the Federal Republic of Germany to Germany."  Is my original remark controversial???? Chergles (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tried to fix the mistake and entered the facts- By changing the incorrect West Germany was formed to the correct: The Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Federal Republic of Germany (simply referred to as West Germany..) much of the obvious mistake would be corrected and explained, that West Germany is only a common everyday term, but as you can see, soon the incorrect term was entered again. I wonder what the reason is why people at wikipedia prefer mistakes?

Definetely needs fixing An Observer (70.133.74.161 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
 * As long as this article is named West Germany, there is nothing wrong in using this short hand term. I do not see a justification for a move either, since this term is indeed very common.
 * As to the IP's edit, which I reverted, it did nothing else than repeating what is already stated in the first paragraph of the lead: To give the formal title of West Germany in English and German. This is certainly not the way to go. Means, we cannot specify the official denomination upon every use of the articles name.
 * Note that this is the English Wikipedia, after giving the official German denomination in the first sentence of the article, we do not need to repeat this.
 * Despite all this, I feel that you (the IP 70...) would be an enrichment to the Wikipedia project. Therefore, I want to encourage you to get an account (in less than 5 min) and become a full-fledged member. T om ea s y T C 09:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Federal Republic of Germany was also often known as simply Germany before 1990 in western countries. It was a more politically correct term from a western point of view, and was also used when it was clear from the context anyway that one referred to West Germany.

"From the 1990 reunification onwards, the Federal Republic of Germany has been exclusively known as Germany in common usage." hopefully avoids any misunderstandings. UweBayern (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct map?
Did someone notice that the map isn't entirely correct? I am quite sure that something went wrong here. East Germany looks much bigger than it actually was... any suggestion on how to obtain a correct map? teutsch (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it wrong? Looks pretty much like the (different) map at New Länder. Rd232 talk 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Infobox Former Country" removed
The use of "Infobox Former Country" is utterly wrong, as the Federal Republic of Germany still exists, having grown in 1957 by 1 and in 1990 by 5 states, similar to the USA which has grown several times, e. g. by two states in 1959, see List of U.S. states by date of statehood. Nobody would claim that the USA ceased to exist in 1958. Thus the infobox is removed, and data is moved into a separate section. -- Matthead discuß!    O       16:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Before those actions please first discuss here!
 * The Infobox itself is advantageous. You are right about the name of the Infobox ("Former Country"), but the name is negligibly. --Orangerider 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly used this talk page, which can not be said about you. The Infobox as such does not apply, as it claims that it the Federal Republic of Germany ceased to exist in 1990, which is utterly wrong. The use of the box is unacceptable, it contradicts facts. -- Matthead discuß!    O       20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Infobox is applied to the political occurances in West Germany; the several references in the acticle already show that the German state is and was always the identically very same until today and that it didn't cease to exist in 1990, but kept to exist in 1945, 1949 and 1990. --Orangerider 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As the section above proves, and many other remarks elsewhere, too many people just don't get it, they either believe that West Germany does not exist anymore, or that it was merged on equal terms with East Germany. Same for German national football team, some insist they never won a World Cup, but West Germany did three times!
 * If any data that is listed in such a infobox is needed, then it can be included separately. For example, a comparison of the area and population would be interesting - but then this would belong in a different article, like History of Germany since 1945‎, where most of this article should be moved to anyway. It's enough to explain the informal use of "West Germany" with a few sentences and a map here. -- Matthead discuß!    O       01:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be very intent on promoting one particular point of view that, clearly, not everyone agrees with. It's not a matter of "getting it," it's a matter of not agreeing with you.  --Reuben 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So why does not everyone agree with simple facts (and my view)? Why do people insist on odd misconceptions? West Germany is not an informal name, it is a misinformational one, leading to gross mistakes - see the use of "Infobox Former Country" for a country that still exists, enlarged by about 25%. It would be funny to apply this infobox also to the many USofAs that ceased to exist when additional states joined the Union which even altered its flag on every occasion. The only useful(?) information of "West Germany" is "Hey, don't forget, a separate communist East German state existed once, too". -- Matthead discuß!    O       03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would help if you could distinguish between the concepts "West Germany" and "Federal Republic". The Federal Republic (the political entity) continues to exist, even though in different borders. West Germany (the geographical and cultural entitiy) ceased to exist, because the situation of a divided Germany, which defined East and West Germany, has come to an end. Your comparison with the expansion of the United States is misleading, because this process wasn't a reunification of a divided country, but gradual expansion into territories that never belonged to the US before. Anorak2 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that what you really want is to change the title, but there's a clear consensus against it. We can make it clear that the FRG state was continuous and grew to encompass the former East German lands without devoting the whole intro to attacking the idea of West Germany as a distinct entity, which is basically what it does now.  --Reuben 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Infobox: Former Country; on the grounds that officially it's the same country, simply larger. When Saarland was returned to the Federal republic, one would not say that there was a completely new county. And nor was it a new country when what was the democratic republic of Germany disolved and land joined the federal republic. --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is extremely misleading, especially the lists of former chancellors and presidents which suggest a break in 1990 are utterly wrong and nonsensical. West Germany is not a former country, it's an unofficial term that was used during the Cold War for a country which still exist and has existed continously since it was formed as the North German Confederation in 1867. As a state, there is a full continuity, there is no question over this as far as constitional law is concerned. Lists of former office holders belong in separate articles, and they don't end in 1990. UweBayern (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Info box is correct.--Jacurek (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jacurek, who has never edited this article before, is wikistalking me, reverting my edits in an attempt to provoke me. He and other Polish editors are under scrutiny by Arbcom Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. -- Matthead Discuß   19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthead this a a proper Info-box that was here forever and there is not a consensus on removing it. The fact that you and UweBayern don't like it is not a consensus.--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources would be needed for inclusion the claim that Germany does not exist anymore. Good luck with finding some. -- Matthead Discuß   20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Info-box contains tons of important information including maps, list of all presidents since 1949, chancellors etc. It is a proper info-box used in all other articles. You can not remove the whole box because you don't like it. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the infobox is cluttered with arbitrary incomplete stuff. "list of all presidents since 1949"? Those President of Germany elected since 1990 are missing. Stop your wikistalking, Jacurek. -- Matthead Discuß   20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * President of Germany elected after 1990 should not be there because the country does not exist anymore. It is all explained in the info-box you keep removing.--Jacurek (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (out) Why don't you guys consider listing a request for input at WP:Third opinion or WT:WikiProject Germany. That is going to be a lot more productive than continuing to go in circles around one another. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rjanag, for your suggestion, but it comes a little late (about two years). This (and related problems like many sport teams) was discussed several times (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany/Archive_11, Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians'_notice_board, and talk archives), and it is listed on German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Also, what do you expect from people who claim that my country does not exist anymore since 1990, or has been founded only in 1990? -- Matthead Discuß   21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus at any of those discussions that directly supports either your or Jacurek's edits here, so rather than pointing to old and indirectly related discussions you should seek input on this one in particular. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have protected this page because there appears to be edit warring between Jacurek, Matthead, and Florian over the infobox. I see no "consensus" either way on the talk page, so all sides need to discuss this more before reverting one another and making claims to 'consensus' that does not exist. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and all that...
There's a basic situation which is not all too difficult to understand (unless you live in some nationalistic cloud-cuckoo-land):


 * This article is about an entity which was called "West Germany" (see title), and this entity does not exist anymore. That might not be "reality" in some people's minds, but that is the topic of this article.


 * There are thus only two possibilities:

a) the article remains; thus, it is about a former country, and thus, it deserves an infobox.

b) those who claim that "West Germany" is not a former country, or that it technically never existed, will have to nominate the entire article for deletion. Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on things that don't or didn't exist.

Pick your poison.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A false dichotomy. It's a history article.  As for "Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on things that don't or didn't exist" - well, start working your way through AfD'ing Category:German and Scandinavian legendary creatures, List of fictional countries and see how far you get. Knepflerle (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We should keep cool head here, the problem is the article's title. West Germany is just an often used term to describe the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949-90 just like some people used Russia or Soviet-Russia for the Soviet Union. "West Germany" has never been the official name of any country and as such never existed. In fact the article covers the History of the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990) and this country of course still exists. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The country was usually known as "West Germany" in English same as for example Burma is known as Burma, more than "Union of Myanmar" which is the more official name. Loosmark (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As an outsider who has been following the debate, the above input from HerkusMonte seems logical. Adding the "former country" template would imply that the Federal Republic of Germany, known as "West Germany" for part of its history, had ceased to exist. In fact there was continuity of all the institutions of state through reunification, with the "only" change being that the Federal Republic of Germany grew. Davidelit (Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess it can be described in more ways than one but i think basically what he had there was some sort of inverted Czechoslovakia, there we had a split, Czechoslovakia --> Czech Republic + Slovakia and here we have the reunification of Germany. Thus West Germany + East Germany = Germany. Loosmark (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the infobox should be added; what is disputed is whether West Germany ended or not in 1990. I think that as the lead explains it does, but Federal Republic of Germany - the official name of the country - has not ended. I'd suggest moving this article to Federal Republic of Germany and restoring the infobox which DOES NOT indicate the Republic ceased to exist; and creating a new article at the West Germany discussing the term that is now historical and inaccurate. I think nobody will disagree that West Germany was the common English name for Federal Republic of Germany till the reunification of Germany in 1990 and since than it is a misleading term; there is no more West or East Germany (as sovereign states); there is only the one united Germany. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My point with the initial post of this string was that the whole controversy seems to be about a redundant article. Most of what's in here can (and possibly should) be included in the history of Germany, and without checking, I can guess it already is in there. The question then is whether a redundant article should exist at all.

Without a doubt, East Germany did cease to exist, as all its institutions were dissolved or abandoned; thus, no-one doubts that that one is a "former country" (and I'm guessing even those who doubts its legality/legitimacy won't doubts its existence). I therefore seriously propose this article should be turned into a small explanation of the term and everything else be merged into the article for Germany itself. That should end this senseless fighting and edit-warring. (see next section) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most of what's in here can (and possibly should) be included in the history of Germany, and without checking, I can guess it already is in there" - to be honest, it would be more helpful if you did some checking and not guessing before nominating articles for merger. This is a significant topic with plenty of specific interest - per WP:DETAIL this is a prime candidate for a standalone companion article.  WP:LENGTH is another reason this is a badly thought-out idea - it's generally a bad idea to be merging ~35k articles into ones over 100k, as proposed.


 * "That should end this senseless fighting and edit-warring." - no, we don't delete or merge articles to solve behavioural issues - those should be sorted separately. Our articles exist and are arranged for the benefit of our readers, not because of editor's squabbles - if it were otherwise, we would no longer have articles on the West Bank, the Catholic Church or even Yoghurt. Knepflerle (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing merger discussion. Result was no merger. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger
I have very little to say on the matter that I haven't half-a-dozen times before, but I think there is a call for a separate article on the history of the FRG between 1945 and 1990 (the story of West Germany being one of the most crucial in understanding modern Europe) and that the appropriate name for the article is West Germany (for my reasoning, see this old comment of mine). I would not support a rename personally, but this is certainly preferable to a marginalisation of the material elsewhere.

As this is essentially a history article, the disputed infobox is not required - infoboxes should only be used for conveying simple information that needs no further clarification whatsoever. Here some clarification is in order, so we should not run the risk of misleading through over-simplification. The information can easily be incorporated into a short paragraph with adequate background to help explanation. Knepflerle (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The target articles are simply to large already. History of Germany since 1945 is an expansion on a subsection of this article and as such it should be a merge from but that again would fail on the shear size. Agathoclea (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose The question about infoboxes and "former Countries" aside (which is really a matter for the WikiProject in question)


 * Comment (as a German) I think this is an article to be worked on, but Westdeutschland did exist and is the common term for the Federal Republic of Germany (1945–1990) and there should be an own article. Renaming this article&mdash;maybe to History of the Federal Repubic in Germany from 1945 to 1990&mdash;is in my opinion beginning a redundant discussion (therefor are redirects and more). The entity doesn't exist any longer, but inclusion of Infobox former country is also irrelevant, if the article is good, reliable and sourced (and all other things articles need [and the lack of those is the main problem here]). A merge of this article (into or from something) is imho not the solution, because as stated West Germany played a important rule in modern European history. I see problems within the article itself, like structure and much more important inline-citations; this should be adressed, not merging and renaming every other year. Thanks. Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per arguments above. 91.110.246.19 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should have an infobox
Someone removed the infobox claiming this was according to talk page consensus. I see no consensus here to remove the infobox. Please, direct me if I missed something. So long, I will reinstall status quo. T om ea s y T C 17:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I was reverted and the infobox removed again. Based on what? Where is consensus that there should not be an infobox. If East Germany has one, it is just inconsistent not have one here. T om ea s y T C 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "If East Germany has one"?! How childish. The first and only free elected GDR parliament has decided to dissolve the GDR in order to join the FR Germany. There was and is no "symmetry" between these two countries, as the informal naming with West and East suggests to simple minds. The GDR has vanished, while the FR Germany still exists, enlarged. "Based on what" do you want to declare the FR Germany a former country? Any (reliable!) sources it has ceased to exist, while chancellor and president etc. stayed in their offices for years to come after 1990? Just like the USA has grown from 13 to 50 states, the FRG has grown from 10 to 16 states. Do you really want to create a separate article for each intermediate entity, and declare it a former country with a colorful template? -- Matthead Discuß   22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with user:Tomeasy, there was no consensus for removing the infobox. Seems that user:Matthead is POV pushing a little bit. Loosmark (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And User:Loosmark is editwarring a big bit. As usual. Go elsewhere. -- Matthead Discuß   00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Go elsewhere"? Wtf? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one edit on 2 November. How is that "editwarring a big bit"? Matthead please stop making stuff up, it's not my fault that most people don't see consensus for removal of the infobox. Loosmark (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to be childish.
 * I think that an analogy between East and West Germany is very intuitive for the vast majority of our readers. Only the fewest will come to imagine that your argument is the reason that West Germany is lacking the infobox.
 * Of course, you are right Matthead that the FRG did not stop existing, and that in contrast to the GDR. So do not belittle me on this fact. Just for me, this fact is not deciding the question. We are to provide a high quality encyclopedia, which we would not do in the eyes of our readers, if we install such an obvious inconsistency here.
 * @Matthead. Please consider your language if you want your arguments to be heard. If you find something childish - keep this sentiment to yourself - and argue against it. It should be easy for you to counter childish arguments. T om ea s y T C 08:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, what is your stance? T om ea s y T C 08:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My first stance is, nobody should tell anyone to "go elsewhere". Regarding the infobox, I think it should be there. This article is about "West Germany" which in English usage was a country, and that country ceased to exist. I do not care what you call it in German, or what the German interpretations are. As I have stated before, if there is somebody who believes that (due to legal interpretations) such a country never existed, the article should be deleted as a hoax. You cannot have it both ways: either there was an entity called "West Germany" or there wasn't. If there "was," then it "is" no longer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstalled the infobox for the following reason: Searching the history, I found that the situation was stable while the infobox was in place. In July, people started removing/reinstalling it. That is, since July this topic is disputed. This talk page shows no established consensus then that would explain a change. Since there is no consensus here now, we should discuss this issue while the last stable situation prevails. That is, the infobox being in place. As soon as we find that consensus has changed, the infobox shall be removed. As long as this is not the case, it should stay. T om ea s y T C 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Length of the lede
I wonder whether everybody would agree with me that the lede is much too long. Optimal would be to half its size. If we agree that at least 25% should be removed, we would have a good basis to start another discussion: Which passages have to go? T om ea s y T C 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean nobody cares or nobody agrees or nobody knows how to help it? T om ea s y T C 07:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing that bogus former country template would be a good start. In fact, it would be sufficient keep only the very first and very last paragraph of the lead, which explain the use of "West(ern) Germany". All else should be covered in the proper article history of the Federal Republic of Germany until 1990, the equivalent to de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990), or in History of Germany (1945–1990), or even in History of Germany. But as long as some people ferociously insist on "West Germany, a former country", we have to keep everything here, warts an all. -- Matthead Discuß   14:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you keep the two things apart. There is a talk page section about the infobox, if this is your concern.
 * With respect to the topic treated in this section, I understand that you agree with me that the lede is too long. Furthermore, you propose to only keep the first and last paragraph. Let's take it from there, and see what others think about the proposal. T om ea s y T C 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with you. What I propose is the move of the whole current article to history of the Federal Republic of Germany until 1990. If that is done, then all that needs to remain here is the short description of the use and misuse of the terms "West Germany" and "Western Germany". -- Matthead Discuß   17:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose the move suggested by Matthead. Loosmark (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a good idea would be too keep the first paragraph, transfer all other stuff from the lead to the mean article and possibly expand the lead a bit. Loosmark (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion
What proportions of the population were Catholic and Protestant? --JWB (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Map so different?
The map of West Germany and East Germany are different in the outlines of the West. Can someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "West Germany" map of Europe is just bad. There are several countries missing, and East Germany is depicted much too large. Anorak2 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You could contact one of the map creaters to ask for a newer and better version. The creator of a map is usually linked on the file page. T om ea s y T C 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Things still left undone
Why are there no Economics and military section in this article? I would add them my self however I don't have the knowledge base, Thank you. Endercase (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.96.38 (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

German citizenship
My understanding is that West German law did not recognize such a thing as citizenship in West Germany, but rather recognized only German citizenship that belonged equally to Germans living within the Federal Republic and Germans living in other parts of Germany. It seems to me that should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The map is completely wrong. Someone has manually changed the border of west germany to east germany (GDR). That has to be fixed otherwise the article is insufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.114.139 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

German reunification
... it is wrong that East Germany has become part of West Germany - at the 3rd of October 1990 East Germany as well as West Germany desisted from existing - the territory of East Germany acceded to the ambit of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany - the Basic Law was changed into the constitution of Germany.

Citius Altius Fortius 08:06, 1 July 2005 (CEST)

This information is wrong, the GDR joined the BRD under the article 23 of the Basic Law, therefore the GDR desisted from existing the BRD still exist see German Wiki and the preamble of the German Basic Law http://www.bpb.de/wissen/89EEKH,0,0,Pr%E4ambel.html. Therefore I will delete the last sentence. (sorry for my unregisteration)

Wrong category
A few days ago, a certain user, supported by an IP, added the category "Former countries in Europe". This is simply wrong, because only the English name in common usage changed. The 'Federal Republic of Germany' exists as a state since 1949! On 3 October 1990 the five new established federal states on the territory of East Germany joined the Federal Republik of Germany, which became larger. The same happened in 1957, when the Saarland joined the Federal Republic of Germany. But nobody has the idea, to count the Federal Republik before 1957 to a category of former states. The only difference is, that the English name in common usage didn't change then. Another good example are the USA, before and after Alaska had joined. (To my surprise, I see in the article, that Alaska was officially proclaimed a state not before 1959.) It would be the same to attach the same category of former states to the United States before 1959. This category is simply wrong. Therefore I'm going to remove it. --Henrig (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose the removal. Most certainly "West Germany" does not exist anymore. In fact West Germany and East Germany joined, a process known as the unification of Germany, I don't think you can compare that with Alaska joining the USA. The capital of the unified Germany became Berlin, the capital of East German. Dr. Loosmark  17:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no. And Brazil moved it's capital in 1960 from Rio de Janeiro to Brasília. Is Brazil a former state therefore? Judicial not a bit. --Henrig (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I quite get your point. I am not saying that every state which moves its capital is a former state, arguing something like that would be stupid. I am just saying that there is a big difference between Alaska joining the USA and the reunification of Germany. That USA would move the capital to Alaska is virtually unthinkable. Also Germany was divided after WWII so it's logical that a reunification happened while nobody divided Alaska and the USA. Could you please undo your removal of the category until a consensus on this matter is reached on the talk page? Dr. Loosmark  18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The category was attached on 8 June by Zlatan Ramić without discussion and judicial the issue is clear. A reunification happened, because Germany was divided. But the choosed way was, that the federal states on the territory of the eastern state joined the still existing other state. Other ways had also been thinkable. But a long procedure over several years seemed not to be very desirable at that moment, when the time was doubtful. (For instance, there was a coup in the USSR in 1991.) Fact is, that the Federal Republic of Germany remained. --Henrig (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that West Germany still exists? Dr. Loosmark  21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * West Germany still exists, yes, as much as Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York still exists, despite having acquired a crown, a throne, an additional title and a number in 1953. The Federal Republic of Germany aka "West Germany" acquired five states in 1990, and in common English usage, the preceding "West" was dropped, as there was no East German state anymore. -- Matthead Discuß   21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "West Germany acquired five states in 1990"!? Do you have a source for such a description of the 1990 events? Google has 665,000 hits for "unification of Germany" and "West Germany acquired five states" has zero hits. Dr. Loosmark  22:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a Google hit for having a business of yours here, Loosmark? -- Matthead Discuß   00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Dr. Loosmark  01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In my view, what Henrig and Matthead are saying is true of the "Federal Republic of Germany", but of course that is not what this article is called. It's called and is about "West Germany", which I think from a colloquial language standpoint it is fair to say "ceased to exist" in 1990. It didn't "cease to exist" completely, but it ceased it exist under the (colloquial) name "West Germany" and it ceased to exist in its then-present form. I understand what those arguing against the inclusion of the category are saying, but it seems to be more of a technical argument based on the assumption that the article is about the FRG, when really it is an article of a more limited nature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about a part of the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, and simply should be called accordingly, history of the Federal Republic of Germany until 1990, just like its German WP counterpart, de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990). The article at West Germany should just explain that this name was used for the 11-state FRG until 1990, when the corresponding East Germany aka German Democratic Republic vanished, and thus the need for distinguishing yet simple common name. That would end all those never-ending POV pushing about "former state", "disestablished", "year end: 1990" and such. All that ceased, was disestablished, or ended, was the use of "West". -- Matthead Discuß   01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Both West and Germany vanished and formed a new state, the unified Germany. But anyway I doubt you will seek consensus so do as you please. Dr. Loosmark  01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Matthead, your solution to rename this article history of the Federal Republic of Germany until 1990 might resolve the problem as you have outlined, but my point is that this is not what the article is called. "West Germany" (the name of the article) no longer exists as a state. Yes, the FRG existed before and it still exists, but this is not the name of the article and "West Germany" is interpreted colloquially by English speakers as something slightly different than FRG. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume, a category 'states with changed common English names' would fit, but a category 'Former states in Europe' is misleading, because it implies clearly, that the certain state didn't exist any longer. By the way, the United States of America changed it's form since 1776 also proportionally much more, but were always the United States. Categories for 'states in certain times' would fit, but not a category 'former states' for existing states. --Henrig (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So now what happened in 1990 was that a state changed its name!? Dr. Loosmark  23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You really try hard, do you? -- Matthead Discuß   00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you make a very good point, Henrig. I fail to see how the Federal Republic of Germany acquiring five new states in 1990 on the territory of what had been the GDR (and Berlin) is fundamentally different from the United States acquiring two new states in 1959. The United States even changed its flag twice as a consequence of these events. Should we have former country articles about the United States between the admissions of states also? That will be a lot of articles. -- Nidator T / C 13:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Below another post by me, which I've added to a wrong section today: '':::West Germany was the common English name for the Federal Republik of Germany, which is now out of use. It was never its own name and West Germans also didn't use it, in case they didn't meant the Rhineland or the Ruhr aerea. --Henrig (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)'' --Henrig (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Compromise suggested. I think both sides to this debate have taken opposite but extreme positions. Yes, the FRG existed before and continued to exist after 1990, but no, "West Germany" in the exact same form as it is usually referred to in English did not continue. I think this is easily resolvable by a compromise. Like all compromises, it involves a bit of give and take on each end. Here's my suggestion: The category should not be included for the reasons Henrig gives above—that it is misleading. However, the template in the top right hand corner should be allowed to state that West Germany existed from 1949–1990. A footnote could be placed after "1990" which could explain the issue more fully. (In the meantime, users need to quit edit warring over this.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we do not haggle over facts, and make 2+2 equal 4 ½, or anything other than 4. People need to stop insisting that the name "West Germany" is more than a name, used in and for 1949–1990. I've once again deleted the inappropriate former country infobox, there can be no consensus to misuse it for this article. Any relevant numbers, names etc. can be included in different form. This article needs to be moved. -- Matthead Discuß   13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not "haggling over facts", I'm attempting to reach a compromise on how to treat the article under this name. I understand you want it moved, but it doesn't appear to be going anywhere for the time being, so until then we need an approach to take that will stop the edit warring. If you simply say "no, no, no" to every suggestion, you're just isolating yourself and making your opinion irrelevant in the consensus-building process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, you *are* haggling over facts. And these facts are, that there never was an entity "West Germany" that ceased to exist in 1990. There *is* an entity which has been colloqually called "West Germany" before 1990, and is nowadays simply called "Germany". Of course this article has a narrower scope, but that still doesn't change the fact that this scope is not an entity "West Germany" which ceased to exist in 1990, but the entity which is now simply called Germany at the time it was called "West Germany". There surely is no harm im keeping this aticle under the lemma "West Germany", because, yes, it focusses on a time the entity it is about was called so. But it should be perfectly clear that while said entity, the "Federal Republic of Germany" is no longer called "West Germany" but simply "Germany" (for the lack of an East Germany, which does not exist anymore), it does still exist, and has not vanished, but is simply called differently. So of course the category "Former Country" is simply wrong, as it is not a former country, but a historic era of an existing Country. But for exactly the same reason the Infobox is wrong, too, as, I repeat myself, the article is not about a former country that doesn't exist anymore, but about a historic era of a still existing country, that was known under a certain distinctive name during that era. There can't be a compromise about those facts.
 * And it's not Matthead who stubbornly says "no, no, no" for no reason. It's those who simply don't get that whats now simply called "Germany" is exatly the same entity that was called "West Germany" before 1990, those who insint on this being about a former, a disestablished country, that make him want to move the article to a lemma where no misinterpretation is possible. Because that is what the whole haggling is about: The denial that The Federal Republic of Germany of today is exactly the same state it has been since 1949, only bigger. And if you want to suggest a compromise, then please include into your proposal how to make sure that the article discourages the misconception af an entity "West Germany" having ceased to exist in 1990. And you won't want to deny that both the inclusion in the "Forner Countries" category (which is clearly wrong) as well as the presence of a "Former Country" infobox will encourage that misconception, so however the article is made up, it cannot be in the categry, nor have the infobox. --Caballito (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. What we have here is the inverted process of the Czechoslovakia split, there we had Czechoslovakia ---> Czech Republic + Slovakia, and here we have the opposite phenomenon: West Germany + East Germany ---> unified Germany. It's simply really. West Germany as such does not exist anymore. Dr. Loosmark  15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not as simple as it appears to you. The analogy with Czechoslovakia greatly exhibits your fallacy. The two republics that emerged are two states with an equal relationship to the common state they formed before.
 * In the case of Germany, exactly this is just not the case. West Germany is certainly more related to modern Germany than East Germany, because it shares the identical official name FRG, the same constitution, and accordingly the same institutions, while East Germany, the GDR, was simply dissolved. Its name, constitution, and institutions stopped existing.
 * Nevertheless, I am in favor of having West Germany as a former state that stopped existing in 1990, however, not because of the simple and wrong understanding that you, Loosmark (is your doctorate self-accredited;-), show by using the Czech analogy. A better analogy would be Yemen, I guess. How is this case dealt on Wikipedia? T om ea s y T C 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Olympic committee quite clearly counts the medals for West Germany, East Germany and (the unified) Germany separately, see: All-time Olympic Games medal table. If the pre-1990 FRG and the post unification FRG would be the same country they would just count the medals together. But they do not which is telling. Dr. Loosmark  11:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dabeisein ist alles, Loosmark? You also made your provocative and uneducated remarks at the medal table talk. That WP article, which relies on Original Research as the IOC does expressingly not "just count the medals together" for different games, and the IOC website itself are a mess, in regard to Germany (and some other countries). For Oslo 1952, the IOC lists the German pairs mixed figure skating gold medallists as from Germany, with a link to the German IOC (Recognition date 1895), and right below, the Gold winning German four man bob sleigh team, as from "Federal Republic of Germany (1950-1990, "GER" since)", without a link. And you want to sell the IOC website, or the WP article, as a proof that West Germany does not exist anymore? If anything, the IOC states that the current Germany already existed in 1952 and 1895. -- Matthead Discuß   13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds reasonable. (And establishing a new category 'States in certain periods' may also be a matter to think about.) --Henrig (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from Matthead, who wants the article moved, is there any user that objects to the compromise position I have proposed? If not, I think it's fair to implement it until the article is moved per Matthead's preference. Dr Loosmark, is this compromise acceptable to you? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the moving of the article. This was already tried in the past and the consensus was against it, so it is not quite sure why should the article be moved "per Matthead's preference". As for your compromise, personally I don't oppose it since I don't care too much about categories. But other might feel differently, I don't know. Dr. Loosmark  22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I still oppose the suggested title change for the exact same reasons I gave in this post nearly eighteen months ago, as nothing has changed in this regard. There is no need to "correct" the usage of former chancellors, major international organisations, the academic writing from the universities of the English-speaking world and common use in English-language media and reference works (follow the link for evidence). The article text explains the subtlety of the matter adequately already. Using anything other than "West Germany" to refer to the BRD in the period up until 1990 would essentially be an anachronism - it is the preferred term for the state in that period in English-language literature both from the time in question, and since then.

As I said here, however, this should be written as a history article, and shouldn't necessarily be squeezed to fit the template of a country article with all the associated infobox and category trappings. Something tells me that this wouldn't be an issue at all if the template's name didn't include the word "former" (which doesn't even appear to the reader anyway), but there may be call to create a bespoke infobox for this rather atypical article that distinguishes it from extinct states. Knepflerle (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)