Talk:Stasi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cold War  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Espionage  
WikiProject icon Stasi is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Espionage and Espionage-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mass surveillance  
WikiProject icon Stasi is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by GDR task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Former good article nominee Stasi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 3, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
High traffic

On 2008-11-15, Stasi was linked from Slashdot.org, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Stasi executions[edit]

The section on Stasi execution is completely bogus, the sources don't support any of the claims. Someone delete or fix, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.47.64 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction between name and motto[edit]

The official title of the organisation was the Ministry for State Security, but its official motto was Shield and Sword of the Party This was theoretically a contradiction since the German Democratic Republic had pretensions of being a multi-party democracy as opposed to being the one party state which in reality it was. Could this equating of the SED with the East German State be considered a bit of a freudian slip on the part of the Stasi's founders ? 213.40.223.203 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- 91.97.217.159 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambig[edit]

I was redirected here from a search for HVA... I was looking for the chemical though... And there is also the Herpes Virus Association. Could we put in a disambiguation link at the top? Thanks N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 T a l k 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out those 16,000 bags have not been reconstructed yet, and may never be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianpotato (talkcontribs) 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page from "STASI" to "Stasi" since nobody ever uses the capitalized version. -- Djmutex 15:11 21 May 2003 (UTC) Sorry, but many informations are wrong

  1. only a part of the MfS was an spy organisation the HVA (Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung)
  2. stasi was a bad organisation and a crime against the civil rights but it have nothing to do with the GeStaPo its more like NSA

I came from a social democratic fammily my parents and I had problems with all systems but my grandparents dys in an KZ and I think there is a big different between Nazideutschland and the DDR --80.108.102.143 17:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see the citation or evidence for this allegation: "..Many early Stasi officers were former officers of the Nazi SS with East German Communist leaders actively seeking former Gestapo and SD personnel to lead the Stasi in its formative years." I don't believe it--everything I've read tells me the East German communist goverment was much more thorough in their 'Entnazifizierung' than West Germany. I mean, why would East German communists actively seek out revanchist, rightwing former SS? As if they didn't have enough of their own Stalinist fanatics to fill the Stasi leadership ranks in the early days?? If the East German state did seek out former SS/SD, it would be to ship them off to the USSR and Siberian gulags to pay for their war-crimes. -JJR

JJR, you are seriosly mistaken when you think that "the East German communist goverment was much more thorough in their 'Entnazifizierung' than West Germany." There actually was no serious Entnazifizierung in East Germany. All you had to do as a Nazi do was to swear allegiance to the new regime and everything was forgiven. The regime even provided a special party for these "former Nazis", the NDPD, for a while with the Wehrmacht's General Paulus as a figurehead. Especially in the beginning, the DDR issue very nationalist propaganda, considering itself the real Germany as opposed to the "Western separatists", retained almost unchanged military traditions, uniforms and used a helmet developed by the SS. And of course the Stasi could make good use of SS and Gestapo personnel. And these people had another advantage: they were eager to prove their worth and could be pressured much easier because of their past. The top notch of course were old guard Communist such as Mielke. But Nazi and Communist paramilitaries were already much alike in the 1930s. 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I heartily concur, that as a policy Nazis, who were were brutal to the Communists and other Leftists during the rise of the third reich, would have been dealt with with little sympathy whether they had been S.A., or S.S. However, OTOH I wouldn't be shocked to hear about a handful who were consulted. Even the US sought information from and pardoned Nazi scientists and Japanese war criminals after all. But did they actively seek them out to fill their ranks? I find that very hard to believe. Khiradtalk
Truth might be stranger than fiction. Str1977 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
At the end of the war the franatic Russian communists putting together a ruthless secret police state in an occupied country ( effectively ) would find the skills of some former Nazis very very useful. Communism was, and is, much closer to Nazism than democracy. However to be NPOV many post-war German organisations in both parts of Germany used former Nazis, and I can't believe that even a large minority of the Stasi would be ex-Nazi. Simply because how would the communist government of East German trust them? David.j.james 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A Former SA member may have been acceptable, if he joined after Hitler came to power, since the SA were purged in part for having Leftist leanings. Also, a former Nazi could use the defence that he had joined only because it made no difference wether he was a party member or not, he was simply trying to stay alive. If he could come up with evidence to show that he had sabotaged Nazi efforts, that may help him as well. Then thre would have been the experts who the Stasi needed, and those who managed to cover up thier past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.102.188 (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
The remark about SA being more acceptable than SS to the Communists is nonsense. "Leftist" has little meaning in that regard. And what would Communists care about conflicts between Nazis - it was the SA that fought with their Communist counterparts before 1933 and which arrested, killed and tortured Communists 1933/34 - not because they were more ruthless than other Nazis but because that was their job. The SA was not purged for leftist leanings but because Hitler
a) couldn't accept a man as powerful as Röhm, with an independent power base, inside the party, and
b) there was great outrage among the German populace against many SA actions in 1933/34. Though Hitler approved of them and profited from then, the SA was a political burden when Hitler tried to present himself as a statesman and a proponent of law and order.
c) the German military (100,000 men) was keeping a very close eye on the SA (3 million men) as a possible rival. Had Hitler sided with the SA, the military would have moved against him and civil war would have been the result. Furthermore, Hitler wanted to conquer Lebensraum in other countries. The SA was of no use for that aim. He needed a proper army for that and could only build it on the basis of the Wehrmacht.
For all these reasons an independent-minded SA leadership had to be eliminated. As for the left leanings, these are associated with the brothers Gregor and Otto Strasser, who actually advocated national SOCIALISM. But Hitler had already defeated them in the mid-twenties and pushed them out of the party in 1932. Some confusion may be due to the fact that Gregor Strasser was murdered during the purge of the SA - but so were Hitler's conservative enemies such as Schleicher and Kahr. Str1977 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


and mo

I specified that Walter Ulbricht was the East German leader, because the common reader shouldn't have to click the link, though the curious reader will. Just better form, which clarified the context more. I also used the term "leader" rather than secretary, to simplify the meaning for those unfamiliar with Soviet style Communist states. But as long as it is specified who Walter Ulbricht was, I don't care what term is used. Khiradtalk 23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


I really think that the historical inmportance of this group is WAY understated if not all most non-existent. The length of spying we so great under this regime of "big brother" like atmostphere that to not list it here seems almost, well, planned. These people put cage traps on people toliets to make sure they were not flushing political stuff down the toliet. Also I think that the relationship between the Nazi Secret Service and the formation of the Stasi with under the style of the KGB is also not really layed out for the reader. I also would like to DISPUTE the pro-stasi stance here, and remind the reader that there is a difference between what are "leftist" and "marcsists" as I would more then assume they were saving Communists in south america, not just liberal, as the wording infers. I would also like to see the blurb on the "mass Survielence" page be added to this one, strange it isn't here as it would not be redundant and was the sole purpose of this group. But of course this is just my side of the discusion, one wanting cleary facts, less opinion.


The former Stasi headquarters were sold in 2004 for $1.50? Where is this information from?

Size[edit]

The current English article says STASI had 91,000 employees and 300,000 informers. The German article says 91,000 official and 100,000 unofficial coworkers, and dates this number to 1989. Both articles mention the estimage that 1 in 50 citizens collaborated, but in the German article this is limited to citizens between age 18 and 80. In both articles, these numbers should be given proper sources. The numbers are important, as it is often (and most probably correctly) claimed that GDR had the most comprehensive surveillance of any regime. --LA2 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

and why is it first one of 50 (which sounds correct) ant then one of 7... 91.67.210.177 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In an article in 25 May 2007 , in BBC News it says that : "Some calculations have concluded that in East Germany there was one informer to every seven citizens."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6692895.stm Kayhan (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Figures given by the Stasi-Museum in Berlin (Source: Die Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik): 91 000 employees plus 173 000 unofficial collaborateurs in the late nineteen-eighties in GDR (plus again 20 000 in FRG) - as the Stasi has been growing during its existence, these are the highest numbers to be expected. As unofficial collaborateurs was registered any person approached by Stasi and agreeing on informing, even if no information would be passed on, which means that there is no such thing as informers that might have been "less official" than the unofficial collaborateurs. I have not found any source confirming Mr. John Koehlers calculations. His quotation of a stasi colonel seems to be an insufficiently reliable source without further confirmation. However, having one Stasi collaborateur on 65 citizens (which seem to be the most reliable figures that we have to date) is an alarming number that stands for itsself. Frogdul (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Koehler is clearly a reliable source on the matter, and he (and the article) make clear that these are not the "official" sources, which are also cited by Koehler.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop deleting sourced material and replacing it with copied and pasted text containing large number of grammar and numeral formatting errors, such as here and here and here. This version incorporates all of the sources -- both the overall total history figures and the 1989 only figures that you added from two sources. They don't contradict each other. One incorporates total figures and the other figures from just 1989. In addition, Koehler is clearly a WP:Reliable Source, so please do not delete it. Koehler specifically differentiates the unofficial estimates (in the next paragraph) figures from official sources, which is also reflected in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I didn't notice that you got in touch, and apologize hereby. As I wrote in the discussion forum, I do not doubt Koehler is a reliable source. Just the space given to estimations in a field were scientific analysis has taken place seems to me unhelpful, especially as it is a matter of great importance to people living in the former GDR. It is nothing less than blaming 2 million possibly innocent people for informing on their friends, family or collegues. And one can't be to careful with spreading accusations that are not proved right.

Corrections you should make: Between 1950 and 1989 the Stasi did not employ 274,000 peoople. It started much smaller. Only in the end it EMPLOYED 91,015. That was the maximum staff they ever had and this figure is not being discussed. Discussions are going on about the number of part time informants. Discussions are there, but those people who do the research and who have the files keep confirming for 15 years now that the number of unofficial informers war 173,081 precisely. You cannot say that 500,000 is "more likely". A Stasi colonel is not likely to be a reliable source as it was part of the Stasi propaganda to make the organisation look even bigger than it was. What do you mean by adult part time informers? All unofficial informants were part time. These are exactly the 173,081 mentioned above. looking forward to hearing from you Frogdul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogdul (talkcontribs) 11:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

274,000 is the total number employed during the 1950-89 time period, not any specific one year. The 1989 one year figure (91,015) is also included in the next sentence. The other Koehler estimates are not based on the official figures, but based on other non-registered informal informers.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There were no non-registered informal informers. all informers had their own file and were registered. 1950: some 3,000 employees. 1975: 45,000. (as quoted by Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik and Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung).This is not 274,00. It is less. Looking forward to hearing from you Frogdul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogdul (talkcontribs) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a language issues. 274,000 is the TOTAL number -- the total list of all employees from all periods for the entire 49 year period. I.e., the list of all full time employees who worked for the Stasi from 1950 to 1989. Not a number from any one year. The next sentence mentions those employed in just one year, 1989, which is 91,015. Koehler disagrees with you about the existence of informers not registered in the official records, because many of the records were destroyed, a well-chronicled event re the Stasi. One can take it up with him.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
From a report on a recent German government study "Around 189,000 people were informers the secret police of the GDR's communist regime, when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 -- that's according to Thuringia's state office for researching East Germany's Stasi on Monday, March 10." 82.35.40.163 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are not reviews and no quotations of Koehler by historians on the internet. I found one review, though, by a history student: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133c/133cproj/06proj/KoehlerStasiTKavanaugh063.htm In Germany, a journalist quoting him lost a lawsuit because of diffamation: http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article583460/Der_Informant_war_ein_dubioser_Stasi_Offizier.html The jugde is said to have known Col. Wiegand for storyrelling in front of the law before (the process, though, was after his death). One month later, the same victim of diffamation went to law against Koehler and won again. Koehler was found out not to have bothered to consult the Gauckbehörde (now BStU) to have Wiegands information confirmed. http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article587806/Die_wiedergewonnene_Ehre_der_Maria_B.html I think it makes sense to give stronger focus to the material coming from the people who have the files and work ion them and on nothing else. Koehler seems to be a journalist, not a historian. I hope the German sources do not cause any language problem, I can translate or resume them, if you like. Die Welt is a conservative national newpaper, traditionallly rather keen on having the Stasi look big and mean. I wonder whether you have been to Germany already, maybe it would be good to come and visit us here in Berlin. We have space for a visitor or two, and that could give all of us the opportunity to dive further into the material, especially as there are lots of places offering information in english, e.g. the Stasimuseum.--Frogdul (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)--Frogdul (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

German Communist Party[edit]

There is no such thing as a GCP - there is only a PDS, a WASG and a Linkspartei (literally: left party).

jep... and these parties derived somehow from the SED party but dont want to be associated 91.67.210.177 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fed up wit the proliferation of unnecessary "citation needed" tags in Wikipedia.[edit]

It's ugly. Whoever is doing it, please think harder about whether a citation is really needed before sticking a tag in. In this article, there's the following:

CIA agents acquired some of the Stasi records after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent looting of Stasi premises[citation needed]. The Federal Republic of Germany has sought their return and received some, but not all of the files in April 2000. BBC

The first sentence has a citation needed tag, but the next sentence points to a BBC article that is a citation supporting what is said in the first sentence. Therefore the "citation needed" tag was unnecessary.

a section about crimes of the Stasi[edit]

there needs to be a section about crimes (against humanity) of the Stasi... 91.67.210.177 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Wiggy![edit]

User:Wiggy! vandalised th link of the Homepage of the MFS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stasi&diff=prev&oldid=141147644

Link to Victim Account[edit]

Perhaps we should have this link, a first-hand account of the brutalizing of one young man by the Stasi http://www.kulturring.org/inhaftiert/roellig-e.htm

What do you folks think? Stanistani 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Amadelio vblog is entirely in German, and perhaps a tag should be attached to that link stating so. Stanistani 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Trivia[edit]

Hi, I dont know how to contribute properly, but just wanted to comment on something written in the Trivia section. I was at the Stasi Museum in the Runde Ecke in Leipzig today, and can't possibly imagine it receiving 3,000 visitors daily.

If you go back perhaps you could ask someone there what their average volume is. 71.233.36.155 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some recomendations for improvement[edit]

This isn't a GAN review, just some quick recomendations for improvement.

  • Only full dates, and dates with a day and a month, should be linked.
  • Citation Needed tags need attending to.
  • Trivia sections are discouraged
  • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
  • External links only belong in the External links section. Epbr123 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks working on it Russianpotato (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick-failed GA nomination[edit]

According to the quick-fail criteria of Good Article nominations, any article that has cleanup or expansion banners, such as the one in the Trivia section, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate. I would also recommend you enact the changes outlined in the section above by Epbr123. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Trivia to be added as needed to the real page[edit]

At its zenith, the Stasi had records on some six million people. It also had an archive of sweat and body odor samples.

The Stasi was known for the radical, fantastical methods it employed. One of the most common methods was exposing suspects to a radioactive material, then using Geiger counters to follow them.[citation needed]

The Stasi's Leipzig building Runde Ecke (en:Round Corner) was preserved in its original condition, and now is a museum.

Alleged informants[edit]

This section looks messy; I intend to clean it up. --John (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Make sure any future entries are referenced, please. --John (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

POV disaster[edit]

I move the following paragraphs over here. They are really a unredeemable POV disaster, blowing out of proportion the alleged sufferings of those poor Stasi members, all this with emotive language ("segregation" - go look up that word. "the people would have none of this talk of forgiveness"). The suicide issue is given extremely undue weight. And what of the job seeking Stasis? The files were only important for IMs trying to get state employment as only then would the files be consulted during hiring. Public offices were checked too but that could only damage reputations, not deprive them of elected offices. Full-time Stasi agents of course probably had a few problems finding employments but that is unrelated to the files, as these people would have their Stasi tenure in their CV (and also receive pension for their service to the state). And even then - what's all this whining about how they had to suffer. What about their victims?

After the opening of the files, Stasi members had a change of life.  They were ridiculed, 
segregated, unemployed, and some even committed suicide.  This was a heated time in Germany, 
and emotions flared as ordinary citizens discovered who previously spied on them and why.  Often  
times, it was a friend or relative that would be the Stasi informant (IM).  Relationships were 
ruined and people were excluded.  Rita Sussmuth, the President of the Parliament in February  
1992, urged citizens to realize that it was the communist system, not individual informers,  
that bore blame for injustice in East Germany.  However, the people would have none of this talk  
of forgiveness.  As segregation in the community grew, ex-Stasi members had a hard time living 
daily life.  Many of them were unemployed because businesses would not hire someone with their  
background.  Although, many had hard times finding jobs, there were some that were able to secure  
positions in law enforcement and security.  If an ex-Stasi wished to get a job in the German  
government, they were required to go through a background check, making it difficult to get hired. 
This was a difficult life for many people.  It took a hold of minds and often times would lead to 
suicide.  Before killing himself, Mr. Gerhard Riege, a member of the East German Parliament and  
former Stasi member, said, “I don’t have the strength to live and fight.  I’m afraid of the 
publicity, the way it will be handled by the media.” Although, many took this path, others 
chose to fight it and work together.  One group, named the ISOR eV, was a coalition of ex-Stasi 
members.[1] This  organization would work together to provide each other with support during legal
issues, as well as provide one another with pension and welfare.  This was a peaceful group; 
however, not all of these coalitions were.  The Rote Faust, a non-peaceful organization, would 
attempt to scare away Stasi hunters by scare tactics of threats of violence. [2]

Str1977 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Stasi/MfS[edit]

I find the alternate use of Stasi and MfS unnecessarily confusing. Might the page be edited to use one term? Stasi seems in most common use. Thanks 71.112.3.154 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)SG

English[edit]

Not meaning to offend. It looks like this article was written by someone with an academic command of the English language, but not by a native speaker. Style, usage and syntax are somewhat stilted throughout. There are grammar-related misspellings. The article might be improved if it was reviewed and edited by a native English speaker.

Botendaddy (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it's a really long article and there's a danger of changing meaning too far, surely? FrankyBabes™ (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Personnel section[edit]

I feel like the section on personnel seems a bit suspicious. In particular, direct comparison of numbers between Stasi and Gestapo is questionable, because these were different organisations with different roles. In particular, the Gestapo relied heavily on informal informants, whereas the Stasi paid and registered its informants. The Gestapo could also rely on the Kripo (indeed being merged with the Kripo post-1939) and the SS to do the dirty work, whereas the Stasi had a secondary role providing security for sensitive buildings. Etc, etc. Also, really, clear dates for figures like the 1/166 need to be given, since the Stasi changed greatly in size over time. I don't really have access to the necessary sources. Does anyone?

The table really needs special attention - as it is, it seems directly misleading: For example, the FSB personnel count includes 160,000-200,000 border guards. The Stasi also maintained a border guard contingent. I'm not sure what the Germans did, but the Gestapo definitely didn't have border security as part of its roles.--163.1.211.97 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Hello. I just saw, that the title is the unofficial name Stasi of this secret service. Why? I propose change it into the official name, like on the German wikipedia: de:Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. The unofficial Stasi sounds unserious and not neutral. Greetings --Tlustulimu (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

They can do that on the German Wikipedia because they all speak German there. Most people here do not know German and do not use or recognize names such as Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. Stasi is the term that most of us know it by. For us, Stasi does not seem like an informal name. —Stephen (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Compass and Wreath[edit]

Aren't these Masonic symbols? The Compass representing Leadership and the Wreath I suppose representing Authority....

I know of many people that feel that Communists perverted religion...and turn the State into God....and that the Socialist Utopia is essentially their version of the nwo....

I mean,I just didn't think they would use masonic imagery to top it all off...

The logic they use seems to go into the very way they address one another.

Instead of calling one another brothers...they call each other comrades...removing God as the Father/Creator and demoting the relationships between men to be purely secular.

I'd like someone to comment on the symbolism...just so I don't feel like I'm grasping at straws.

If there is anyone who can provide citation of someone pointing out the link between communism and masonry, it would be appreciated.

ps: I know Freemasons might take offense but I'm not accusing them of being communists. I know them to be the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneindividual (talkcontribs) 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Stasi and anti-semitism[edit]

I think the assertion that the Stasi targeted Jews and Gypsies needs more evidence. It's part of the neo-conservative canard that communism was just a continuation of Nazism. If that's so, how come the Jew Markus Wolf was given authority over the whole Stasi? Soviet "anti-Semitism" doesn't come close to comparing with Nazi persecution. Take the "anti-Semitic" purges of the 1950s in the Soviet Union. These were actually directed against the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, i.e. Jewish Communists, not just any old Jews, and it was precisely because of the connections between these Jewish Communists and the Zionist movement (the Soviet Union was the first nation to formally recognize the State of Israel, remember?). Yes, Stalin was (again) betraying former supporters, as he did in the purges of the 1930s. But you have neo-con idiots today trying to paint Stalin as another Hitler-in-waiting who was prepared to send all the Soviet Jews to the gas chambers. It's ludicrous. For the neo-cons it's always all about the Jews. There are never any other important considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.14.22 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No 'canard' - anti-semitic pogroms were part of Stalin-dominated communist block countries. Did you take a look at the article's cited Reliable Sources? There are many others published not mentioned - you can browse any large university library in a country with free academic access and find them. National Socialism had a different aim with targeting Jews, Roma, etc. - namely, extermination - the communist government of Stalin and his satellite states' henchmen were trying to punish/eject/remove them from positions of power or influence - additionally, Israel was a major ally of the Western powers, so he was very suspicious of Jews due to his paranoid personality, and natural cultural anti-semitism that many Georgians grew up with at that time, and, sadly, European anti-semitism in general of the 20th century. No need to paint Stalin as another Hitler - he was a mass-murderer of epic proportions in his own right. And your "neo-con" rants are more than silly - please soapbox your political beliefs elsewhere, not on the Talk Pages. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

-- I am sorry but the reliable sources are not very reliable, especially not the sources from Paul Bogdanor. And no, the fact that many Communist in East Germany and the Soviet Union, even after any purges, were Jewish actually does make the claim very laughable. And regardless of what one thinks of Stalinism, it was actually racist. Anti-religious yes, so you could make a claim they were anti-Jewish in a religious sense (although Jews got one of the fairest deals in the USSR) but not in an ethnic sense. It was the same with East Germany. Many of the big bads of East Germany were not only communists (which would make them inferior in the eyes of Nazi Germany) but also Jewish - Marcus Wolf is only one. You also had Kaganovich in the Soviet Union - and spent time in death camps. Hardly the stuff of pro-Nazism there! Not to mention that Soviet Communism was always the arch-nemesis of Nazism - and the pact was simply a neutrality pact so that the USSR could take back former Russian territory without Nazi Germany going to war over it - so that also makes these absurd, and completely Zionist (a nationalist and racist movement like any other) claims a bit suspect. The Mummy (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FIMACO[edit]

In the Soviet Union, about 50 billion U.S. dollars were transferred out of the country (see FIMACO).

I added {{Relevance-inline}} to the above uncited statement from the section STASI#Fall of communism because FIMACO does not mention the STASI, a search of the German language article w:de:Ministerium für Staatssicherheit and its talk archives finds no mention of FIMACO - in fact German wikipedia appears not to contain that name at all - and a briefer google does not find any connection. Is this a misplaced sentence? -84user (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edit[edit]

This edit] makes numerous substantial change.

  1. "the official state security service" becomes "the Communist secret police force"
  2. "of the German Democratic Republic or GDR (informally known as East Germany)." becomes "of East Germany or GDR."
  3. "It was widely regarded" becomes "It is widely regarded"
  4. "as one of the most the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world" becomes "as being one of the most oppressive secret police agencies in the world."
  5. "the ruling [[Socialist Unity Party of Germany]] (SED)."the ruling Communist Party.</nowiki>
  6. "several Stasi officials were prosecuted for their crimes after 1990." becomes "during the 1990s numerous Stasi officials were prosecuted for crimes against humanity."

One at a time, we'll start with #1. Adding "Communist": Yes, East Germany's government was communist. Were the Stasi? Sources please. (Would you say the U.S. Army is "democratic"?) Removing "official state security service" in favor of "secret police force": They undoubtedly were the official state security service, regardless of whatever else may be stated or claimed, this is neutral, true and not subject to serious dispute -- exactly the kind of material that should be in the lede section. While "secret police force" is, IMO, accurate, it is clearly POV ("terrorist" vs. "freedom-fighter" and all of that). While it certainly belongs in the article, I'm neutral on where. In any case, it should not replace "official state security service". Again, please support your arguments. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Infiltration[edit]

A paragraph in the Infiltration section currently reads:

After the Berlin Wall fell, X-ray machines were found in the prisons. Indeed, three of the best-known dissidents[who?] died within a few months of each other, of similar rare forms of leukemia. Survivors state that the Stasi intentionally irradiated political prisoners with high-dose radiation, possibly to provoke cancer in them.

While the text refers to "survivors" alleging this, the cited article [1] names only one prisoner, Juergen Fuchs:

The writer Juergen Fuchs was convinced before his death this month that he had been deliberately exposed to high levels of radiation by the East German secret police, the Stasi, which could have caused his terminal cancer.

Now, the Berlin prosecutors' office is investigating his death, but they are still missing vital evidence as to whether his claims were true.

Elsewhere, the article merely says that some dissidents "believe it would have been entirely possible for the Stasi to have used radiation as a cruel and invisible means of punishment" but there is nothing about anyone making further allegations. It goes on to quote another individual who asserts that another form of radiation may have been used.

The news story is from 1999 and merely says that the prosecutors' office is "investigating." Presumably that investigation has concluded with some kind of definitive outcome, but there is currently no mention of this. The story concludes by noting that the position of medical opinion is "more sceptical" and radiologists "argue that it would be hard to administer such doses without the unwilling "patient" being aware of them or feeling side-effects."

It seems WP:UNDUE to devote an entire paragraph to an unverified claim from 1999, especially without the opposite opinion given in the cited reference. WP:NPOV says that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

German Customs/Stasi Files[edit]

I'm a US Citizen who was pulled aside by German Customs in 2009 while traveling to Qatar from Ft. Laudedrale, FL with a lay-over in Frankfurt in reference to my name (identity?) appearing in four "Stasi files". (I have a very unique, German-sounding name -- it's actually Swedish). The entries were in reference to contacts between myself and an individual in E. Germany via. Fidonet (Echomail) in the late 80's. I don't recall this particular contact but I can't discount this possibility, either, as with the internet it's not always easy to determine the identity on the other end of the line. This was something like a response to a "forum post" as we know it today.

The subject matter of the conversations was rather mundane and apolitical. The encounter was handled by German customs in a very professional and discrete manor and I didn't feel threatened in the last bit. I was provided a pamphlet (in German) detailing the procedure to obtain additional information regarding the files. This seemed not unlike the German equivilent of a US FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

I still have the customs pamphlet and can provide a scanned copy if it is allowed by the WP guidelines and something that would be considered worthwhile. I'm not a hard-core editor here and I know some of the photography/attachments are heavily scrutinized on legal/copyright basis, but I think this is OK.75.224.12.14 (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source that found your encounter notable, please let us know. -- Fyrefly (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

PRISM[edit]

I've already twice reverted IP adding a link to PRISM (surveillance program) in the See Also section. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. There are already other articles that address these issues and this is not one of them. We don't need recentism in an article about a historical subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The production of political dossiers on the citizens and the dissidents has nothing to do with the Stasi??? What do you think NSA is doing with all the personal data of US and non US citizens ?
Please restore that wikilink.
PRISM is very similar to the Stasi (if not the very same thing!) 79.45.102.141 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
No. First, PRISM (based on the article) is an intelligence-gathering mechanism and does not include "political dossiers on the citizens and the dissidents." The MfS was the GDR domestic intelligence apparatus like the FBI (as opposed to the HVA which was like the CIA). Secondly, there's no mention of MfS on the PRISM article at all (nor should there be). While you think PRISM is worthy of the most effective spy agency ever, that doesn't give you a reason to put the link on this article. They're two different things. Please take your political frustration elsewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not my fault if you know nothing about this: NSA wiretapping IS used for "political dossiers on the citizens and the political opposition" (inside and outside the US).
Do you really belive it's all a matter of antiterrorism? come on!
Please dont make a religion based on your political non-understanding of the things. PRISM is not less dangerous than Stasi.
(They've taken inspiration from Stasi when creating PRISM.)
The PRISM wiki link should be here because it is a remaking of the Stasi, 'in US/global soil.
(Indeed, if you connect from Europe to a server in China the traffic will be routed through S.Francisco. If you connect from Europe to Russia the traffic will be routed through a Frankfurt (DE) hub of Level3 witch, as a US provider is ordered to be collaborationist with the NSA)
The link should be here not because it has something to do with East Germany, it should be here because PRISM is a Mass surveillance very (*very*) similar to what Stasi was. (They are strongly related together) 79.7.95.55 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).