This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Discussions relating to what type of state East Germany had

I've reverted the "satellite state" language from the box. While the article should indicate that this was the common view from the US (and other places), the box itself should be restricted to uncontested facts (dates, names, government, that sort of stuff). The GDR was recognized as an independent country by most (all?) the countries of the world for almost half a century. Many in the West questioned the degree of independence; the article properly reflects that. But that questioning does not belong in the box at the top. Jd2718 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed so. The GDR was internationally recognised as a sovereign state, and a full member-state of international institutions (such as the UN). ( RM21 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

• • This is an independent country in name. De facto wise the Communist bloc countries from 1945 to 1989 were essentially puppet states, and highly dependent upon the Soviet Union on the final say (eg events in 1953, 1961, 1971 with the ouster of Ulbricht, and 1989). Since the GDR is now a historical entity and sources are freely freely available, I don't see how this could even be "controversial". -- JNZ 06:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How is that different from the way many western countries had to (secretly) check with the US Government on their decisions? Can I prove what I just said? No! Can you prove your statement? I doubt it. A true satellite state in my book were the SSRs (socialist soviet republics) whose existence was purely on the paper and for folkloristic reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.67 ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know-the term seems a little loaded to me and very western oriented. 167.206.75.157 ( talk) 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So how do you "unload" the fact that your country is being held captive by the Soviet Union? To say otherwise is historical revisionism of the worst sort. Wiggy! ( talk) 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Because the leadership of EG was communist it would naturally agree with the soviet union on many many issues and the government of EG wasn't as strictly communist as the USSR. There were differences. The idea that all communist countries were satellites of soviet union isn't based in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.75.157 ( talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, that's either naive or grossly revisionist. Wiggy! ( talk) 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Burschenschafter changed the introdoctury sentence from calling the GDR a communist state to calling it a totalitarian state. I reverted this for the following reason: Of course, the GDR was in a way totalitarian. But this is too NPOV to be written in the very first sentence. Linking to comunist state is clearly the better idea, as most readers will have a clear conception about what communist states were like, and so know. If not, the linked articla comunist state nicely and very clear puts it: "In the West, a communist state [...] also called [...] Marxist-Leninist dictatorship". So, "communist" used in this sense, is a specific' kind of totalitarian and hence more precise. Burschenschafter, if you feel that the GDR is even in comparison to other communist states especially totalitarian, a good place to write (and explain) this view would be in the section about the Stasi, which clearly could be made a bit longer. And for the "puppet-led by the Soviet Union": That's not quite true: In the beginning, it was like this, granted. In the end, it was strangely reversed: You certainly remember, how Honecker complained about the laxness of the Gorbatchev regime and decided to keep thing tight in Germany and not to follow Perestroyka. Maybe, we should detail this relation between GDR and SU in the history section. (So, Burschenschafter, don't get me wrong: The introductory sentence is sensitive. Better spell out such things at length further below.) Simon A. 14:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Wik is claiming that the DDR was not a totalitarian state. However, he insists on calling Nazi Germany totalitarian and has made it clear that he think it is acceptable to refer to a totalitarian state as "totalitarian". While his opinons certainly were "politically correct" in the stalinist regime that killed million of people, and maybe were shared by the few Germans, Hungarians and other East Europeans who collaborated with the occupation force until the liberation in 1990, I find them unacceptable here at Wikipedia. Nico 17:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is the edit war here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with characterizing Nazi Germany as a totalitarian state, but equivalence is not automatic. Please let Wik speak for himself... I think perhaps some language that East Germany is considered by sympathizers to have been a socialist state might serve. Fred Bauder 22:26, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have asked Wik to justify his edits a long time ago. I do not think there is anything wrong with characterizing DDR as totalitarian, and I think we should be consistent. Anyway, Wik is welcome to show some evidence that DDR was a democracy. Nico 22:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are things in between democracies and totalitarian states, you know. (Note I am not saying it was either, or both, or neither.) Morwen 22:47, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

None of those things in between shoot anyone who tries to escape. Fred Bauder 17:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

When did East Germany stop being totalitarian? I ask this because I presume you wouldn't contend it was a totalitarian state after the CDU won the elections. But they couldn't have won the elections if it was a totalitarian state for quite some time before... Morwen 17:29, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. Middle Germany (DDR) stopped being totalitarian when it was liberated and annexed by Germany in 1990, they started holding elections etc. Why couldn't CDU win the elections after the territory was liberated? Do you presume that the Middle Germans should vote on their oppressors when they were free again?

Anyway, as a British, why do you defend this totalitarian regime in another country? I guess most British people would be offended if I wished that Great Britain had a totalitarian regime. Nico 19:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The GDR (DDR) was a socialist democracy. --> Myths over the GDR. 217.184.99.75 16:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But I thought they started having elections _before_ it was annexed by West Germany? Was Lothar de Maizière the head of a totalitarian state? I find your last remarks very unfortunate. Morwen 19:21, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

First off, using the term Middle Germany for the territory of the former GDR is, IMHO, way out of line, because it assumes that there are German territories east of it - which there aren't anymore and anyone in their right mind would not go ahead and claim that there are any!!! It is true that Germany until the end of WW II had territories east of the later Soviet zone, then GDR, but they were given back to Poland, as they have been Polish territory that had been annexed by Germany, Austria and Russia over the centuries (see Partitioned_Poland_(1795-1914)). Western Poland was again made a part of Germany by Hitler at the beginning of WW II (see History_of_Poland_(1939-1945)), and these part where the ones east of the territory of the former GDR.

This is awful and completely ridiculous. East Prussia "back to Poland"? Silesia, which had been German for almost 700 years? According to international law, the East German territories belongs to Germany. Million of German people claims those territories as they are rightfully German. Nico 17:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Secondly, there have been elections in the GDR, but they were seen by the West as being rigged, as peole were forced to take part in them and the ruling Socialist Party usually gained a majority in the 90% range in each and everyone of them. -- Kathrynn 10:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, in the first place, the eastern German territories were given to Poland as compensation for the Soviet Union taking over what had been Eastern Poland, and had very little to do with any perceived Polish right to them (surely there were very few Poles in German east pomerania or Lower Silesia). And these territories were under German political control continuously for hundreds of years before 1945. But, this is not the point, which is that the idea that East Germany should be called "Middle Germany" is stuff and nonsense. As to totalitarianism, I personally oppose all use of the word totalitarianism as an objective descriptor, as it is POV, because many people don't accept the term as descriptive of anything. If were were to use the term, Morwen certainly has a good point that the DDR was certainly not autocratic for its entire existence, since it had free elections in 1990 that resulted in a CDU victory, and reunification only came after that. So it would be incorrect to say that East Germany was a totalitarian state, because, for at least the last year of its existence, it was not a totalitarian state by any standard. Preceeding was by User:John Kenney but unsigned Fred Bauder 16:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not rule out use of words like "totalitarianism", it only requires that it be balanced by other views of the situation, like for example, "socialist". That elections were held as the puppet regime neared collapse should certainly be included in the article, but in an appropriate way. Fred Bauder 16:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV ought to rule out the article saying "East Germany was totalitarian," as though this is an unproblematic term. I think everyone can agree that in some sense, East Germany was a "Socialist" state. The same is absolutely not true of totalitarianism (even among those who accept that there is such a thing). The elections were held after East Germany ceased to be a Soviet puppet, BTW. john 17:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is the language I would have:

East Germany, formally the German Democratic Republic (GDR), German Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), was a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist government imposed by fiat on the Soviet Zone of occupied Germany by the Soviet Union which, together with the democratic state of West Germany, existed from 1949 to 1990 in Germany. The GDR was proclaimed in the Soviet sector of Berlin on October 7, 1949. It was declared fully sovereign in 1954, but Soviet troops remained on grounds of the four-power Potsdam agreement. East Germany was a member of the Warsaw Pact.

Perhaps this would be acceptable:

East Germany, formally the German Democratic Republic (GDR), German Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), was a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist government imposed by fiat on the Soviet Zone of occupied Germany by the Soviet Union which, together with the democratic state of West Germany, existed from 1949 to 1990 in Germany. Supporters of Marxism-Leninism characterize East Germany as a socialist state and emphasise popular support among the German people for the regime. The GDR was proclaimed in the Soviet sector of Berlin on October 7, 1949. It was declared fully sovereign in 1954, but Soviet troops remained on grounds of the four-power Potsdam agreement. East Germany was a member of the Warsaw Pact. Fred Bauder 17:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is far too much pro-NATO, anti-WP, to be long-term viable.
-- Ruhrjung 17:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not just leave 'totalitarian' out of this. Marxist-Leninist government would seem to be a much better description. DJ Clayworth 17:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would say that the most proper name to use would be "Marxist-Leninist" state considering that true "Communism" has no state.--Jersey Devil 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer socialist state. Marxist-Leninist state would also be fine. Communist state would be less than ideal and totalitarian state would be very bad. Everyking 07:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideally it should be both socialist and Marxist-Leninist in some non-clumsy phrasing, together with a comment that in the West it was usually described as "communist". Totalitarian shouldn't be in the introduction - but if it has to be, it has to be clearly ascribed to a certain POV and not written as fact. (It's just too loaded and judgemental for an encyclopedia intro, where we don't have room for proper explanation and context.) Possibly there should be a section to look at these issues in more detail, something like Relationship with the West, or Western Attitudes. Rd232 08:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This form of government (both its ideal form and its real manifestations) used to be called " people's democracy" ( google), and still is in the official name of North Korea. I remember it used as a neutral term, i.e. neither endorsing nor disparaging. Zocky 14:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling any Soviet satellite state Marxist-Leninist is incorrect. Look up Stalinism. And the idea that we cannot call a spade a spade and refer to East Germany as totalitarian is asinine post-Glasnost revisionism. In Political Science one has to make distinctions between the ideology of the state and the method used to carry out the ideology. In this case, Socialism may be the ideology, but it is carried out through an autocracy. Kade 18:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)