Former countries (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Germany Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

... 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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Do you have a Google hit for having a business of yours here, Loosmark? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?  Dr. Loosmark  01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So now what happened in 1990 was that a state changed its name!?  Dr. Loosmark  23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really try hard, do you? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Category:Former countries in Europe 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article is totally wrong. There wasn't an old FRG and a new one. It is the same FRG, because eastern Germany joined the FRG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.245.133 (talk • contribs)

Yes. One example is the Category:Former member states of the United Nations. So 2 German states left the UN in 1990, and a new one was admitted? Hilarious nonsense. This article shows nicely what is wrong with English Wikipedia (and with those Wikipedias that translate content and POV from the English one). -- Matthead  Discuß   23:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The articles name should be changed to "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990". The term "West Germany" is slang and not proper phrasing for an encyclopaedic article. You can still direct searches for the colloquial term "West Germany" to this page, but the name of the article as it is now is not appropriate at all, it is just a sign of lacking quality control. It is the souvereign right of a country to give herself a name, and the official name in English is "Federal Republic of Germany" and nothing else. If there will be no objections in the next days i will change the articles name to the correct term. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany is not slang but an example if WP:COMMONNAME for that period. By all means redirect Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990 the other way. Agathoclea (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your thought. I'm aware of this WP policy. But i thought this will be superseded by neutrality and political correctness. If not clarified, that this is colloquial language, the term "West Germany" can be considered derogatory, and i am sure enough people feel that way, and i guess this is why this topic pops up from time to time, people expect better from an encyclopaedic article.

But even if the "common name" policy is more important, the usual way to distugiush between the two German countries of that time was the usage of the phrase BRD (even in everyday language more common than Westdeutschland), which translates into "Federal Republic of Germany". So again the conclusion is, the title has to be changed. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where you are, but people round here (Wales) refered to it as West Germany. Even using the abreviation as you suggest is clearly not politically neutral as the article shows and I had a workmate back in Germany docked points in his exam for using it. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure, that until the 1970s the newspapers referred to it almost always simply as Germany.Henrig (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany? Or in English media? In a Western context or in an international context? Agathoclea (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the perception of two German states and therefore on which occasions the term was mentioned. For instance, before 1968 there was only one German Olympia team. Until then, sport events were hardly a cause for such a perception. Furthermore: Only a few states in the world recognized the GDR as a second German state. Their view of Germany included for a long time predominantely only the western German state, which claimed an exclusive mandate for the entire German people. Btw., until the 1960s the GDR did the same. Therefore, the terms West Germany and East Germany likely for a long time were mentioned predominantly in cases, when the context made it necessary.Henrig (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent quite some times comparing old movies with their later remakes. Much that did not need explaining initially needed to to be explained (spelled out) in a later version because the context got lost. Today hardly anybody would know what the Great War was. We know it as World War I. While in 1966 in was blindingly obvious that the team involved was West Germany and therefore a mention of Germany would suffice today in retrospect we can not leave in unambiguated. Also there are enaugh sources closer to the time refering to it like that. Yes it is political posturing - Being in the English language wikipedia we use English usage and English usage would have had a Western bias supporting West German bias. Agathoclea (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still riddled with the private philosophies of a small number of wikipedia authors, making the text a mess of what is mostly a good overview over West Germany, interspersed with endeavours in hairsplitting over the term "Germany". Insofar as there are incorrect statements, I am going to remove them. Anorak2 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically false claims deleted: That the international car registration code was "D" only in West Germany, that "Deutschland" was commonly used as term for West Germany, that West German delegations in international events would always take part under the name "Germany". Anorak2 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]