Talk:Germany

To answer your question, Magnus, sure, why not a link to a Mapblast map? But why Mapblast in particular? There are surely a lot better maps for our purposes. In fact, if I'm not mistaken the CIA has some for free. --LMS

Fascinating article, Axel! Looks like a lot of good material for the anti-Americanism article. --LMS

---

Which date of independence should we use? The 1949 date is frequently used given the nature of reform within Germany leading up to that date. Just how much of the Empire is left in today's Germany? Also, I'm not sure about the national motto. -Scipius

hmm, good question. You can even go for the unification date. However, the country as we know it now was really founded in 1871, so I'd take that date. The Netherlands and the USA's borders haven't really remained the same either since their independence. Jeronimo

I don't like the notion of 1871 as a date of independence. I admit this primarily to be a subjective feeling, but 1991 or 1949 would in my opinion be the only veracious data for independence. When it comes to formation one can of course argue that 873 is equally much the date of foundation of "the country as we know it" as is the re-unifications in 1871 or 1990. -- Ruhrjung 09:40 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the word independence is taken from the country template, as it is applicable to many nations in the world - but not to all. If the word independence is not your liking (and I can agree with that) you can replace it by "founded" or "formed" or something similar, since Germany indeed never really was a dependency, with the possible exception of the years after WW2. Then, I'd prefer the year 1871 because - I believe - that was when the country also became known as Germany. Jeronimo 10:15 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Now I think the 2nd Empire was best known abroad as The Prussians for all of its existence. :-))) But joking apart, I agree that Germany was dramatically transformed in 1871. However, let's not give the impression that this transformation was the most significant in the German history. I hold the splits of Charlemagne's realm, and the Westphalian treaties, as more important for the German nation. Mentioning 1871 in this context gives me strange associations. To put this in perspective, see: Denmark, France, Sweden and Russia. Don't forget that Denmark was discontinued for some 20 years of the 14th century (pawned to Holstein), and that Sweden was (at least semi-dependent) to Denmark in the 15th century. -- Ruhrjung 10:56 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I do now change the data to 873. -- Ruhrjung 06:24 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, no no no no, The Bundesrepublik Deutschland was not formed in 873 AD! The modern German government was formed quite recently! It's really not appropriate to use Independence in reference to this region as it never really fought a war of independence, nor was it really granted independence excepting that in relation to its brief postwar occupations. The independence term is a holdover from the United States page I suspect, that should be changed to Date of Formation or something; which, depending on whether WEst Germany annexed East Germany or merged with East Germany is going to be either 1991 or 1949. The 1871 government ceased to exist in 1918. 172.141.178.53[?]

See the comments from May 5. I agree with you that the "Independence" scheeme is awkward. But isn't there a reason to chose a similar aspect as have our neighbour countries? "France" or "Sweden" has also changed regimes and borders quite a few times. -- Ruhrjung 06:48 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Do Germans even celebrate an independence day? 172.141.178.53[?]

No. Do the Danes or the Swedes?

With all respect for your boldness, I question if it's too wise to change a disputed sentence before having tried to conclude the debate on this talk-page. -- Ruhrjung 07:00 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think you are trying to use the somewhat amigious "date of the formation of the German nation" whereas this page seems to refer explicitly to the federal democratic constitutional government formed in 1949. 172.141.178.53[?]

The 1871 government may have ceased to exist in 1918, but the German state founded in 1871 did not. The German state that existed between 1918 and 1945 was called the Deutsche Reich, just like the state that existed before 1918. It changed its form of government, but it was still the same country, with the same name and (mostly) the same internal divisions. In 1945, though, I'd say that state pretty much ceased to exist. john 06:55 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I disagree although it doesnt matter if we both agree the state vanished in 1945. I think the Weimar Republic was wholly new and different from the 1871 government. 172.141.178.53[?]

It makes me sad to see my friendly attempt being reverted within minutes. I fear this doesn't exactly improve the credibility of this and similar pages. One could have hoped for, at least, a message on my Talk-page. In a perfect state the discussion had been resolved on this talk page first, and I admit I maybe better could have waited.

So far there have been reasons presented for:

1. The time of the division of Charlemagnes realm.
2. The establishment of the Second Empire.
3. The establishment of West-Germany.
4. The re-unification with East-Germany.
5. The time when the occupational troops left German soil.

The scheeme used contains a box for "Independence". I question the value of a title "Formation" which would be unique for Germany. This doesn't reflect any real uniqueness, in my humble opinion. Better would be to note the year of Independence as "n/a". -- Johan Magnus 01:33 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think "formation" is a much better name than "independence." Independence doesn't work for most of Europe, or for China, for Thailand, Japan, Ethiopia, and various other countries. Also, what date do you give for the "independence" of the British dominions? The date they became dominions, or the date of the Statute of Westminster? Formation works better. When was, say, Argentina, formed? It would be the same year that it became independent, no? That would seem to be a much wider form than "Independence" john 06:04 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

However, the date 1949 is to modern Germany as 1776 is to the United States. Surely we should not fail to include such an important date? I agree it is somewhat inappropriate perhaps to revert; however, do not worry too much as older versions are saved. My reversion accomplished some good as you have now decided to discuss this issue. While the idea of a convention regulating pages to be similar is a good idea, I question whether every state should be given a "date of independence" as this is not applicable in many situations; however, what is implied by that term "independence" is applicable in probably every single case, that being the day the current government is generally considered to have been formally and constitutionally created, a date which in some cases simply happens to coincide with "independence". 172.143.50.165[?]

The date 1871 seems, to me, at least, to be similarly important to 1949. After 1871, there was a single German state - only after 1871 does the term "Germany" even acquire a political meaning. 1949 is simply the date of foundation of the present government, the Bundesrepublic. Would we give 1946 as the date of independence or foundation or formation of Italy? No, we would give 1861, wouldn't we? john 06:04 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

But was the Bundesrepublik Deutschland formed in 1871? I think the solution to this issue is to have Germany be a history page about the notion of a German nation; and with a link to Bundesrepublik Deutschland. It may be correct to say the German nation formally appeared in 1871; however, it is incorrect to say the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was formed at that time, and that is what this article is indicating. 172.143.50.165[?]

Don't you think it could have a value to use the "Fact box" in a similar way as the neighbour nations? -- 212.181.86.35[?] 14:28 14 May 2003 (UTC)

Again, the Republic of Italy was not formed in 1861, but Italy as a nation-state was. Similarly, Germany as a nation-state was formed in 1871. The present French Republic was formed in 1959, but France has been in existence as a political entity for a millennium or so, and as a nation-state for hundreds of years. Why is the Bundesrepublik to be treated differently? I would say that the four years of non-German sovereignty would be the only argument to be made on this basis. If this were 1930, say, Clearly the German Reich had been founded not in 1918 or 19 (the dates of the fall of the monarchy and the Weimar constitution, respectively), but in 1871, in spite of the fact that the form of government and constitution were different. And a name change doesn't really seem significant enough, either. In the last 30 years, Afghanistan has changed it's name numerous times. Until 1973, it was the Kingdom of Afghanistan. In that year, it became the Republic of Afghanistan. In 1978, it became the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. In 1987, it switched back to the Republic of Afghanistan. In 1992, it became the Islamic State of Afghanistan, and in 1997, with the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Since 2001, it's been the Islamic State of Afghanistan again. Does that mean that Afghanistan was formed in 2001? john 07:33 16 May 2003 (UTC)

I would like to remind that this is not a page about the Bundesrepublik, just like France isn't about the Fifth Republic, or Sweden isn't about Bernadotte's Swedish Monarchy, or the Social Democrats' Swedish Hegemony. On the other hand, this is not about the "Germanics". It's about "Germany". What happened in 1871? Imperial Austria's prestigeous wish to dominate Germany was defeated by Prussia, establishing a competing Empire. A division of Germany was established, just like in 1949. Denmark "as we know it today" must be said to have been formed either in 1658, when Terra Scania was to be ceeded, in the 1350s when Waldemar Atterdag re-conquered and re-united most of Denmark from German Counts of Holstein, or in 1864 when Schleswig-Holstein was ceeded. But a (loosly) united Denmark existed since Christianization. The same can be said about Sweden. And about Germany and France since 873. Italy is not an equal case: Italy had been under a sustained foreign rule and totally lost unity. Germany wasn't under foreign rule until 1871. -- Ruhrjung 08:37 16 May 2003 (UTC)

The idea that Germany between say 1250 and 1871 (or 1866) is comparable in its nation-stateness to France, Sweden, Denmark, etc. in the same period is ridiculous.

This I dispute in all friendliness. Compare Denmark before Waldemar Atterdag with the German Reich, or Sweden before Gustav Wasa. -- Ruhrjung 09:28 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Germany wasn't under foreign rule. But it was not a unified state either. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was an interesting phenomenon, and was a kind of German political entity, but it was nothing like the Kingdom of France, and the Emperor was not the monarch of Germany in the same way that the Most Christian King was the monarch of France. And the Germanic Confederation that followed was even less a German state. 1871 was the year that a single, sovereign German state was created, in very much the same way that a single, sovereign, Italian state was created ten years earlier. Yes, the details were different, because the Italian and German situations were different, but I still think the analogy is appropriate, and that Germany before 1866 was a lot more like Italy than it was like France, even if it was not entirely like either. john 07:00 18 May 2003 (UTC)

If one choses to look at one fixed date, as for instance Germany of 1863, there are strong reasons supporting the notion of "Germany being more like Italy than France". Although, if instead focusing on trends and longer periods, I think one comes to another conclusion. France, Denmark, Sweden and Germany started as rather similar constructs. The other escaped the deepest pits of feudalism, Germany didn't, which showed in 1648. But Germany remained formally independent (although sovereignty was feudalistically spread - but cultural and linguistic unity didn't suffer). Then, and maybe more important, do Germans relate to Germany in a way similar to how Italians relate to Italy rather than to how the French relate to France or the Norwegians relate to Norway?

Maybe it would be the best idea to note the year of Independence as "n/a" - or maybe simplier: to remove the row from the table.

-- Ruhrjung 09:28 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Removing the row might be easiest. I'd add that Germany had little more "linguistic unity" than Italy in, say, the 18th century. Both had a literary language based on one of the regional languages (Saxon in Germany, Tuscan in Italy), and a variety of more or less related dialects, some mutually incomprehensible. I'd also add that the "deepest pits of feudalism" reached by Germany were at a level never reached by any other European state. The extraordinary disunity of Germany for most of the Early Modern Period, in particular, was unique in European history, and in many ways, well, not feudalism at all. I'd also say that the nature of the idea of the Holy Roman Empire as a universal state (which was shared between Germany and Northern Italy) served to make German proto-nationalism a rather different thing from the proto-nationalism of France, England, or Sweden. The early Germans (and North Italians) expressed their political identity through an empire which was theoretically universal, in much the same way that the Byzantine Empire produced an identity which was not Greek nationalist in any modern sense, but rather "Roman" and universal. I think this is a pretty significant difference. And the shared experience between Germany and Northern Italy here is significant. Southern Italy had a rather different experience, of course. In any event, I think that in most ways, the German and North Italian experience during the high and late middle ages was quite different from that in France (can one imagine a Frenchman writing, as Dante did, of the virtues of a universal monarchy, for instance?) That the universalist imperial vision had, likely, died with poor Conradin in Naples in 1268 was not noticed for a while. And by the time it had, both Northern Italy and Germany had developed politically in quite a different manner from most of the rest of Europe. Looking at Europe around 1500, one sees, around the margins, several medium-to-large, relatively unitary states - Portugal, Castile, Aragon, Naples, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, England, Scotland, France. And then, in the middle, is the mess that is the Holy Roman Empire, which is, depending on how you look at it, either an enormous state dominating the whole center of Europe, or a tangle of hundreds of small to very small states. Anyway, I think a pretty strong case can be made that Germany was *always* more easily comparable to Italy than to Sweden or France. john 08:06 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Given the header of the table reads "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", IMHO the date of formation should related to this. This doesn't help much for the table titled "Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft" though. BTW I added the definition from the primary source (Factbook) to Independence .. at least, until the content in all country articles has been edited. --User:Docu

About this 'day of independence' thingie... i'd think, that the official date is 1955 (would've to look up the exact date), when the FRG got back 'full' sovereignty` from the 4 allied control powers. That year allied controls and restraints where lifted, Germany got a 'new' army (recruited from the paramilitary police force established a few years earlier and commanded by former nazi-generals...) and joined NATO. The allies kept the right to intervene into inner-german-turmoil (coup d'etat and the like) till 1966? when the german army gained that right (notstandsgesetze) perhaps both dates should be mentioned... i'll be back at university tomorrow and ask there. the one, who teaches "regierungssysteme in deutschland" (types of goverment in germany) should know for sure... hal9500

I am amending words that go beyond non-NPOV and to unsubstantiated theory only. Read Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by a most respected and authoratative historian with access to facts who debunks the myth being perpetuated here by pointing out that at the Paris Peace Talks that resulted in the Treaty of Versailles, the Allied leaders did their best, and to blame World War II on them is to absolve Hitler and his appeasers. Joe Canuck 13:10 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)