|WikiProject Former countries / Prussia||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Germany||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
Prussian reforms 
The discussion, if one can call it that, of the Prussian reforms under Hardenberg and Stein is amazingly one-side and biased. I trust that someone better informed will re-write that section.Cosal 20:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Themanwithoutapast, why don't you join the discussion on the List of Germans at Talk:List_of_Germans about who is considered German. In my opinion, Schubert was both German and Austrian. Austria was part of Germany when he was born in 1797, and when he died, there was no German country, but Austria was still a member of the German Confederation. --Chl 12:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- If you see it this way, George Washington should be considered a famous British freedom fighter. 1797 Austria was NOT part of Germany, Austria was an independent country heading a loose confederation of german-speaking independent countries and was at that time referred to as Austria in the whole world - not Germany. Themanwithoutapast 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not quite correct: Austria was part of the German Empire, and the Emperors of Austria (and Kings of Hungary) were simultaneously Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. They only relinquished the crown of the German Empire in 1806 when the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved. Cosal 20:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There were no Emperors of Austria until 1804. All the other Emperors in Vienna until 1804 were always Roman German Emperors. And in Austria Austrians with German mother tongue were always registered as Germans until 1938. An "Austrian nation" became national doctrine only 1945 and didn't exist before, although Austria created a fake history after 1945. 11:49 27-12-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "The late 18th century was a period of political, economic, intellectual, and cultural reform, the Enlightenment (represented by figures such as Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Adam Smith)". Locke hardly counts as either late 18th century or an enlightenment figure... he died in 1704! -WHO IS THIS??? [The signature is supplied with the "WHO IS THIS" by Pika ten10 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]
- Though I consider 18th century to be the an "Age of Enlightenment", I can't totally agree with this person (Sign your posts, PLEASE.). For me, any point in history in which people get new philosophical or political ideas can be called "Age of Enlightenment". Actually, I can say that the rise of socialism is "Age of Enlightenment"... for historians cannot agree on the time in which time that period in history happened... and that is the case of other historical periods. Thus the person who said that "The late 18th century... (represented by figures such as Locke, Rousseau etc.)" is having an error. Furthermore I extend this to the person who said that John Locke is not an enlightenment figure. Imagine he had thoughts about the Theory on Natural Laws, Social Contract and other issues mostly about freedom of the individual, even though he died in 1704. Is he the person you reject to be an enlightenment figure?? His ideas actually influenced the later Enlightenment thinkers. -Pika ten10 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A bit off-topic 
Hi I feel that this article is a bit off-topic. The topic should be the German Confederation and not the social-economic development of Germany in the 19th century. While of course the social and economic development are important to understand the German Confederation, it is much too extensive. The focus of this article should be when it was created, who was in it and when it had ended, etc. Unfortunately the whole thing concentrates more on the development of the social and economic structure Germany. The next thing I find negative about it is a the liberal use of qualifying particles like "reactionary" or "regime" (which tends to have a negative conotation nowadays). I also find the use of the word "bourgeois" a bit problematic in this connection. The article also has a left bias and interpertation of events I find a bit disturbing. I think it should be reworked on that basis. --Ebralph 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
North German Confederation and 1871 Empire 
The North German Confederation was not changed to the German Empire. I corrected that. Limburg was not constituent member of the Federtaion, so I took it out of the paragraph, which was too complicated anyway. --Kipala 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The North German Confederation was changed to the German Empire. According to Nelson Case the North German Confederation Reichstag changed the name to the German Empire on 10 December 1870. I have corrected your correction. Int21h (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I cant remove it ... (do you see in article) ... --EnBobM 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now its repaired ... --EnBobM 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Flag of the German Confederation was the current tricolour 
Someone keeps removing the flag of the German Confederation, which was used from 1848 onward, which was the black-red-yellow tricolour. If you do not believe this, look on the web for Flags of the World or FOTW and look at the historical flags of Germany, it will display the German Confederation as having this flag from 1848 to the confederation's dissolution in 1866.
- The black-red-gold tricolour was the flag of the revolutionists of 1848/49. During that time the German Confederation wasn't active. The German Confederation was reestablished between 1850 and 1851 under Austrian Presidency. Habsburg Austria supressed the use of that tricolour, for example at the subjugation of the Vienna city council by Austrian general Windischgrätz, he ran down that tricolour lying in the dust with his horse. That was the position of the Habsburg monarchy regarding that flag. Please don't confuse the Frankfurt National Assembly of 1848/49 with the German Confederation, which de facto didn't exist between 1848 and 1850. Blinder Seher 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Right picture needed 
If the Netherlands, Denmark and England where part of the German Federation than why are they not part of it in the picture of the German Federation that comes with this article. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Not independent? 
These 5 years of independence mark the first and only time since the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the 10th century when these states were free from higher political control.
I don't know who wrote this, but the states were already acting independently after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. The rule of Napoleon was an exception.The German Confederation was some kind of NATO: It was about mutual defense, fortresses have been built to defend the territory. There was a Federal Assembly in Frankfurt to coordinate the armies and the politics of the states, like the EU does, but there was no head of state or ruler of the confederation,which means the states were independent. Every state had it's own constitution and passed it's own laws.Johnny2323 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
In the "Members" section it says "23 smaller and tiny member states shared five votes in the Federal Assembly." Surely, given the size of the article and the importance of the subject, it would be worth the trouble to list those smaller states; I imagine I am not the only one to come to this article to find out who exactly the members of the Confederation were. Languagehat (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Mistakes in the list of signatories? 
I have some questions regarding the list of signatories:
1) See the following link:
According to the article in this link, the Duchy of Lauenburg is listed (Number 38) as one of the states of the German Confederation. However, this state is not listed as one of the signatories. Is this an omission, or did Lauenburg never sign but still become a confederation member?
2) Both Holstein and "Denmark on account of Holstein" are listed among the signatories. This seems redundant. Is this a mistake?
3) Even if we add Lauenburg to the signatories and disregard "Denmark on account of Holstein", this still leaves us with a count of 40, but the article says the Confederation was made up of 39 states. Is there an explanation for this apparent disparity?