Talk:States of Germany

Ministerpräsident

How should we translate Ministerpräsident? Minister-President, as in the tables at each state article? Prime Minister, as in the list in the Thuringia article? Premier, as in List of Premiers of Bavaria? Google indicates that all three are commonly used...

Well, if no one cares, I'll just settle with Minister-President. Sandman 13:10, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Historically a "Ministerpräsident" can be regarded as both a member of cabinet with certain privileges (so he's the first among them: "le premier ministre") or as a head of state (= president) in the absence of a Chancellor or Prime Minister. Since "Minister-President" sounds kind of odd I’d favour the term "Prime Minister". This also gets closer to the fact that a German "Ministerpräsident" is head of the executive power only whereas a president quite frequently has some influence of the country’s supreme court, the national bank (he’s most likely to appoint the new judges or national bankers), the military forces and in some nations the parliament (he sometimes "opens the parliament" at the beginning of a electoral period). The German Ministerpräsident lacks these privileges. Whether you call it "Premier" or "Prime Minister" makes in my opinion just as much a difference as naming the federal states "Freistaat (Bayern)", "Republik (Saarland)", "Bundesland (Hessen)", "Staat (Niedersachsen)" ... it’s always the same thing.

Historical states of Germany

Maybe there should be an article about the historic states of Germany? 203.166.57.12 07:03, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I Agree!

I agree. An article like this, with the hyperlinked names over Prussian-led Germany, and even Austria-Hungary, would be useful. --209.34.235.6 (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bundesländer" != "Provinces"

The article claims that there's a risk of confusing "Bundesländer" with U.S.-like states and suggests that one think of them as provinces. This is wrong. Germany is (due to its Constitution) a "Bundesstaat", that in fact is more like a confederation (= weaker central power) than it is a federal State. All power resides with a Länder except those especially granted to the federal government in the constitution. For example:

- Germany has 17 representations (embassies) to the EU in Bruxelles: one for the federal republic and 16 for the German Bundesländer.

That is inaccurate. The representations of the Laender to the EU are not embassies. The term "embassy" is a term of art in international law, and these representations are not embassies; the customary international law rules about diplomatic immunity do not apply to them. the Laender of Germany are not subjects of international law.163.1.51.59 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- Each Bundesland can maintain foreign relations of it's own (... as long as it will not undermine the "official" foreign policy)

That is inaccurate. Both legislation (article 73(1) Grundgesetz) in matters of foreign affairs, and the foreign service as an executive body (article 83(1) Grundgesetz) are exclusive federal competencies. Article 32(1) Grundgesetz makes it quite clear that foreign relations are a federal matter. It is true that the Laender can maintain conclude treaties with foreign states within their competencies (article 32(3)), but only with the consent of the federal government, whereas your formulation implies that there is a general inherent power of the Laender to do so, which clearly does not exist. 163.1.51.59 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- Each Bundesland has it's own constitution laying out the principles of state its organisation, civil rights. These constitutions cannot limit the rights granted to the people by the federal constitution, but it can extend them. Provinces don't have this. They are normally founded by a top-to-bottom action.

In essence: Please refer to "Bundesländer" as "states", because it expresses their role a lot better than any other English term.

I've changed this a bit in the article, as none of the reference works I use suggest "province", they all use "state" or "federal state", as do the EU and Germany's own government sites. IMHO it would be much more confusing if people used "province" now that everyone knows them as states. I have merely toned down the idea that "province" is better,perhaps the writer might want to reconsider him/herself whether it is worth a mention at all. Are there any dictionaries or official documents, or any other sources, which suggest "province" is better? Or is it just someone's nice idea about how things should be in an ideal world? Saintswithin 10:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this section about translating "Bundersländer" as "state" or "province". As Saintswithin noted, it is practically universally translated as 'state'. Also, I don't think it's worth mentioning the fact that using the term 'state' to refer to a semi-sovereign region of a federation can cause confusion, because this potential confusion about the word 'state' is not at all unique or noteworthy about German states. And besides, I doubt any native speaker of English is confused by the word 'state' referring to both some subnational entities and also to independent, sovereign governments/nations. Also, the sentence about different transliterations of the word 'Länder' as 'Lander' or 'Laender' is confusing and poorly written - I guess by a non-native English speaker. If someone feels that this point is worth making, please rewrite it. Maybe something like: "The word 'Länder' is sometimes written in English as 'Lander' or 'Laender'."

Even though I think that we should refer to 'Bundersländer' as 'states' for consistency, I do disagree with the user who said that the reason we should call them 'states' and not 'provinces' is because Germany is a federation where the 'Bundersländer' have a good degree of autonomy and the powers of the federal vs state governments are delimited and limited by the constitution, and thus the 'Bundersländer' are not merely provinces. However, in reality, the degree of autonomy of the regions of a country, their powers, and whether or not the country is a true federation is not really related to whether the regions are called 'provinces' or 'states'. For example, Canada is a true federation and its provinces have a good deal of autonomy and the powers of the federl government are limited. From the wikipedia article on Canada: "The provinces have a large degree of autonomy from the federal government" and "the provinces ... together collect more revenue than the federal government, an almost unique structure among federations in the world." --thirty-seven 09:27, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

When I took a comparative government class in the Spring of 2005, we never referred to the Bundesländer as "states" although their meaning as being similar to "states" was clearly defined. They were always referred to as the "länder" and not "states of germany." Based on this, it would make sense that the article be placed under "Länder of Germany" or "Bundesländer" or something along those lines, with the current article title "States of Germany" forwarding to the different title. Mdkarazim 2 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

One thing I would like to have clarified is knowing whether or not each of the bundesländer have charters/constitutions of their own like each of the United States of America. I understand that each has virtually their own autonomous systems in many areas of law and governance, but do they have their own charters/constitutions aside from the Basic Law? Mdkarazim 2 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

They do have their own constitutions. Check out Verfassung von Berlin (German), for example. In that respect, länder are somewhat similar to states. However, one has to also take into account that federalism in Germany in general is understood differently than in the United States. Maybe a discussion of such differenes could be covered in an article about federalism. sebmol 2 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

In en.wikipedia the page name state is about soverign states which a Land is not. To use the article State (subnational) is not of much use because it refers back to this article. The the page named Province is a much better match:

Province is a name for a secondary level of government in most countries. In some countries an alternative term is used, such as state (in Australia and the United States), prefecture (in Japan), or region (in France and Italy; the latter uses provincia as a tertiary form of government, akin to a county). During the time of the British Empire, various colonies had the title of Province such as the Province of Canada and Province of South Australia. In Germany and Austria, the same sense of historical and cultural unity on a less-than-national scale is expressed as Land, the common name for states of Germany and states of Austria.

One should not be put off by this because the words "state", "nation" and "country" tend to be mixed up in English depending on context. For example the UK is a soverign state but it is not a nation because it consists of 3 and 1/4 nations. England a country and the English are a nation (and it was a goal). Keep the name state in the article if you feel more at home with that (why you should be I am not sure, I think Land is better) but link to the word to Province because that article has an explanation of what a Land which the article State does not. Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

German-speaking newspapers and TV usually refer to US states as US-Bundesländer (e.g. "in US-Bundesland Louisiana"). I think this is a good argument for the use of the term "state", province implies a lesser degree of independence. the US states are technically not states, as they are non-sovereign, but we are stuck with state in common usage for both a sovereign entity and a sub-entity. The BBC uses "province" as a translation for Bundesland, which sounds wrong every time I hear it.

Why is Bundesland translated as "states of the federation" and not "federal states"? TiffaF 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "province" necessarily implies any less autonomy than "state" as names of subnational entities within a federation; to me it does not.

As for the translation, I'd speculate that Bundesland is translated as "states of the federation" because that phrase fairly unambiguously means the subnational entities within a federation, whereas in English "federal states" is ambiguous: Louisiana could be called a "federal state" because it is a state (subnational entity) within a federation, but the USA could be called a "federal state" because it is a state that is a federation. In fact, I think that this second interpretation of "federal state" is more common. --thirty-seven 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

if German newspapers regularly refer to the component states of the United States as "US-bundesländer" then it seems entirely apropriate to me to mirror this usage and call the German länder states, or when greater precision is required, "federal states." The term Province (Canada being an exception, perhaps to deliberately differentiate itself from its southern neigbour) to my ear indicates a shared cultural background of some degree, habits held in common, or perhaps where a common dialect is spoken, rather than necessarily a political grouping. The primary models for this line of reasoning are the French provinces: for example, Burgundy, Brittany, and of course, Provence. Yes, they may have once have had an independent political existence, and even be in part re-constituted as the new Regions, with administrative responsibilities, but these new constructions do not always conform to the old description or idea of the provinces in question. Provinces are more of an idea than a reality. In Germany one might argue that a province of Franconia or Swabia might or perhaps should exist, though they have no current political existence except as sub-units. What are the dialects spoken in those areas called, for example? In my (admittedly limited) experience, someone from the southwestern part of Germany may say that he lives in or is from Baden-Württemberg, but classify his identity as a Swabian. Such referral is easier in other parts of the country, a Bavarian is a Bavarian, a Hessian a Hessian, but what is someone fron the Rheinland-Pfalz? (dshep/29.06.2007)

It is often only the British or Canadian writers (or those who intent to make a political statement that the rest of the West is rightly different from the United States) that insist on calling the German Laender provinces. Formally provinces no longer existed in the post-World War II Germany. Before 1945 province was always understood as a sub-Laender level entity in some Laender such as Prussia.--JNZ (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"German newspapers regularly refer to the component states of the United States as "US-bundesländer"" That's not true, they are called "Staaten" or "(US-)Bundesstaaten" but NEVER called Länder!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the german language the word "Provinz" exists as well. Preussen for example was devided in "Provinzen". No-one would call the länder "Provinz". German law theory defined the länder as "Staaten" what literaly means states. It's because they are partially sovereign. For exaple, they can sign international treaties. German "Provinzen" were not able to do that. 92.228.33.131 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the differences between the (e. g. Prussian, Italian) Provinces, the French (Italian) regions on the one and states on the other side is not so much a question of autonomy but one of origin. Both as concerns the foundation of the Empire in 1867-71 and as concerns the reorganisation as FRG in 1948-1949, the Länder came together and founded a federation. Afaik just the same as it was in the USA. On the other hand, the provinces in Prussia or Italy, the French or Italian regions or even the Autonomous Communities of Spain gained their autonomy by a law passed by the central legislative power. Therefore, you could very well call the Austrian länder provinces while the German länder are states. --84.154.123.216 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult one, as the German states have nothing like the legal, fiscal or social autonomy that the US states do; the immediate German cognate for "state" (Staat) was not used to describe the German states, leaving the field open for debate in translation. I've mostly seen UK newspapers referring to them as Bundesländer or Länder (spelled ae or ä) - italicised, as it's an imported word (much the same applies to the French Départements - no translation). That would be the official story - calling them (federal) states in everyday speech is perfectly ok, most of us Brits do that, as it's the nearest equivalent and using the German term sounds pedantic. I've seen "province" used once in the Guardian (and winced), but I've never heard it used instead of "state" in everyday speech. It's the same principle as applies to forms of school and professional qualifications - Hauptschule, Gymnasium, Dipl.Ing etc. have no direct equivalent in the English-speaking world, so the German term is used in official translations (e.g. on CVs), but you're ok saying "high school", "grammar school" or "graduate engineer" or whatever the equivalent is in English where exact terminology is irrelevant. Otoh, autobahn(-s) is often used in everyday speech when referring to the German version - probably due to their much-envied lack of speed limits, making them unique and worthy of a proper name... now that's getting priorities straight! DDWP (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

203.166.57.12

Just a short notice: 203.166.57.12 was me. Regards -- Guido Bockamp 07:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Länder

I've recapitalised Länder, following the EU's use, Muret-Sanders 2004 Großwörterbuch and the German embassy and German govenment websites.Saintswithin 10:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Berlin?

The article states:

The city-states of Berlin and Hamburg are not subdivided.

Out of curiosity, why aren't the boroughs (Bezirke) of Berlin considered subdivisions? Perhaps they aren't precisely analogous to subdivisions in other states, but they do have elected governments and are well known facets of life in Berlin.

--Jfruh 18:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Senate vs. cabinet?

Is there any real distinction between the Senates of the city-states and the cabinets of other states, other than the name? Similarly, are the Mayors of Berlin and Hamburg and the Senate President of Bremen different from the Minister-Presidents of the other states in any way other than in name? --Jfruh 22:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• At least the Senate President of Bremen is different, since the Land Bremen contains two cities (Bremen & Bremerhaven), and the Senate President is not only the "Minister-President" of the Land but also of the city of Bremen, whereas Bremerhaven has its own mayor and city parliament (Stadtverordnetenversammlung). The same applies to Bremen's senators, who are also the respective departmental heads for the city of Bremen, whereas Bremerhaven again has its own departmental heads. --Salocin 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested: Actually Hamburg and Berlin do have cabinets, which are only called senates for historical reasons. The difference is that in the cabinet the Minister-President appoints the ministers, while in the Senate the Senators elect the President. Caballito (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union

Now that the European Union has evolved to its current status, what areas of importance does the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Germany have? I can see Military as being one area, but besides Military and Economics-related matters, what other areas are there? The reason I ask this is to find reason besides nationalist sentiment which entice the bundesländer to maintain inclusion within the Federal Republic of Germany? Is it possible that the European Union might one-day replace the existing institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany as a whole? Please note: I understand that this is party a question of political opinion, so I am already expecting mixed response(s). mdjkarazim 2005-07-03 02:41:54 (UTC)

There is a vast array of issues that the European Union does not address beyond military and "economics-related matters" (which begs the question: what action isn't economics-related?), not the least of which are things such as government-run insurance programs (e.g. health, retirement, unemployment, etc.), law enforcement, education, civil and criminal law, immigration, and much more. While the European Union may have taken on some responsibilities previously reserved to its member states, it doesn't make the member states obsolete for the same reason the federal government of the United States hasn't made state governments obsolete. :sebmol 4 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

I thought education was reserved as a power of the bundesländer? mdjkarazim 2005-07-07 18:11:17 (UTC)

To an extent it is. However, the federal government is heavily involved in it as well (e.g. pre-school programs). There is also a strong level of coordination on the federal level to avoid unnecessary complications for students moving between states. sebmol 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

In the following areas only the federation has the right to make laws according to article 73 of the Grundgesetz:

• 1.foreign affairs and defence, including the protection of the civil population;
• 2.the citizenship in the federation;
• 3.the freedom of moving, the passport system, the registration and identificastion,migration and delivery;
• 4.the system of currency, money and coins, measuresand weights and chronometry;
• 5.the unity of the customs and trading area, the trading and navy treaties, the freedom of goodsand the traffic of goods and money to foreign countries including the protection of customs and borders;
• 5a.the protection of German culture against exit into foreign countries;
• 6.air traffic;
• 6a.the traffic of rails of the federation, and the construction of buildings;
• 7.post and telecommunication;
• 8.the legal relationships of the persons working for the federation or corporations of public law directly subordinate to it;
• 9.the protection of commercial rights, the copyright and the publishing law;
• 10.the cooperation of the federation and the states
  • a)in the criminal investigation,
  • b)for the protection of the basic order of liberty and democrazy, the existence and safety of the federation or a state and
  • c)for the protectiona against domestic ambitions to damage German external interest with violence,

and the foundation of a federal office for the criminal investigation and international fight against crimes;

• 11.statistics for the purposes of the federation;
• 12.the regulations for the possession of weapons and explosives;
• 13.the feed of invalides, orphans and widows of war and the care for former prisoners of war;
• 14.the production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and of installations used for, the protection against the dangers of the release nuclear energy and the elimination of nuclear materials.

I hope I translated everything correctly.--Son sonson 14:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bundesländer wrong term

The article states right in the beginning "Germany is a federal republic made up of 16 states formally known in German as Bundesländer ("Federal States"; singular Bundesland), or more commonly, Länder (singular Land)."

As far as my information goes, that is actually totally incorrect. The term "Bundesländer" is used in common parlance, however legally speaking it does not even exist and is misleading and wrong actually. The sentence should be the other way around. I took a look into the Grundgesetz, Chapter II is titled "Der Bund und die Länder", in the english version it says "The Federation and the Länder". Chapter IV Der Bundesrat reads: "Durch den Bundesrat wirken die Länder bei der Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung des Bundes und in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union." translated as "The Länder shall participate through the Bunderat in the legislation ...etc." Nowhere in the Grundgesetz does it ever talk of "Bundesländer". The state-governments are also just called that, Landesregierung and not Bundeslandregierung. Of course the term Bundesländer is popularly used, however legally speaking it does not even exist and is factually wrong. Germany by its constitution is made up of the german states first, who got together to create a federation, the Bundesrepublik. Therefore anything that has to do with "Bund-" is only at the federal level, by its nature it cannot be at the state "Land" level. Therefore a word like Bundesland in itself is actually a contradiction.

I would suggest this erroneous terminology is corrected in the article or some indication written about it being misleading. I would like to hear what others think about this? I could be totally wrong, but this is how I have learned it and what legal experts have also told me... Gryffindor 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think the term is "wrong". In any case, it should be mentioned that it is used, even if not by the Grundgesetz. Just as a sidenote, the Constitution of Austria actually uses the term Bundesländer. Martg76 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd not thought about this before, but it does sound as if your basic point is correct, that the formal term is in fact "Land". Your argument is partially supported also by the fact that a number of the states are formally named "Land X" (whereas none as far as I know are ever "Bundesland X"). The argument that "Bundesland" is a contradiction is irrelevant, however, since the term is most certainly used in the manner described. Anyway, how about:

Germany is a federal republic made up of 16 states, known in German as Länder (singular Land). Since Land is also the German word for "country", the term Bundesländer ("Federal States"; singular Bundesland) is often used to avoid ambiguity.

I've omitted any wikilinks to keep it easy to read in this discussion. Cheers, Silverhelm 00:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC).

That is interesting that in Austria it says "Bundesland". Well it certainly is an oddity for Germany, because the make-up of the republic is "Länder" first, and then "Bund". Now this is strictly legaly speaking of course, of course the reality looks a little different. I would agree with your proposition above about reformulatin. I also took a look at the German language version of this article. They explain at the beginning of the article how "Bundesland" is erroneous and the background about the term "Land". If other users are fine with this, I will volunteer to translate that section from the German version into english and add it to the article. If users want, I can post it here first for approval and then add it. Gryffindor 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now amended the introductory text in line with my above proposed wording. As for the wording of the German version of the article, perhaps it might be sensible to post it here first.

Silverhelm 22:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC).

"However the term "Bundesland" is actually a misleading, since it would imply a subordination of the German Länder to the federal Bund. It does not reflect the autonomy of the Länder per international law. The correct term, which is also used by the Grundgesetz, is therefore Länder.

This differentiation is not unimportant, because after the end of the Second World War, the Länder in the western part of the former Deutsches Reich were constituted as administrative areas first, and built on them the Federation (Bund) was constructed. This in complete contrast to the post-war development in Austria, where the Bund was erected first, and then the states as units of the federal system followed."

Alright, this is my attempt of a translation, it could definetly use a polish and proofread. cheers. Gryffindor 14:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just checked multiple versions of the Austrian Constitution, and have not found any references to any "Bundesländer", just like the German Grundgesetz it talks about "Länder". Gryffindor 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Former GDR

How can anyone interested in the former GDR find out from this article which of the 16 Bundesländer (or Länder) belonged to it and which of them didn't?

I didn't find any hint—could, or should, it be added? <KF> 17:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

PS on Bundesland: This term may not be mentioned in the Grundgesetz (as has been suggested above), but it is certainly also used by the media. I suppose Land is the historic term reaching back to the early Modern Age or beyond (when they consisted of fiefs), and as these Länder have made a foedus with each other they can now be referred to as federal (Bundes-) (all these words mean the same, don't they?). This, I believe, is logical rather than contradictory.

The problem with this article is that there are sections which are completely missing from the german language version, including what you have pointed out about the former DDR. I can help translate those missing parts if you want? Gryffindor 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. I added a small paragraph about the five states wich were added after the reunification. I think that should do it.Winnie-MD 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the new graph isn't quite right on a couple of points. The lander were actually constituted by the Allied occupying powers before the 1949 creation of the DDR and BRD, and the DDR used them until 1952 -- the current eastern lander are identical to the pre-1952 versions. Also, (West) Berlin was never a land of W. Germany -- it was de jure under the occupation of the western Allies (see the West Berlin article for a more comprehensive discussion of its legal status). The first time a post-war Land of Berlin was created was only after reunification. I have a bunch of stuff to do today but I'll fix this tonight if no one beats me to it. --Jfruh 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but actually that is more information than i cared to give, since the article is about the FRG, not about the "Länderreform" in the GDR. But then again, it never hurts to know more, doesn't it? Regarding Berlins status as a Bundesland, I was always under the impression, it was considered part of the Federal Republic an having the de facto status of a Bundesland, despite the allied control. Thanks for giving the heads-up. Winnie-MD 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The legal situation is complex. The Basic Law has from the beginning mentioned Berlin (which was in administrative speech called Greater Berlin since 1920) as Land, even including East Berlin. The Allied Powers however not allowed the Basic Law to gain (constitutional) force in Berlin. Like other länder, Berlin, had its own constitution, which was given by the West Berlin parliament in 1950 and stated quite at the front, Art. 1 Sect. II and III: "Berlin is part of the Federal Republic of Germany; the Basic law is applied and preceeds this constitution", while in the technical articles at the constitution's back, it was formulated: "Art 1 Sect. II and III gain force only then when their execution no longer is hindered by the Allied Powers." Yet even so, with the allowance of the Western Allied Powers, one could establish a sophisticated system that allowed West Berlin to be a de facto part of the Federation, though with some significant differences. --84.154.99.205 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bundesstaate

Is Bundesländer used only for German states? What about Bundesstaate? -- 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, it is only used for German and Austrian states. States of other federations (e.g. USA, India) are often referred to as Bundesstaat (plural Bundesstaaten).--Salocin 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- 20:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "Bundesstaat" means, as we learn in school, a federation - in contrast to "Staatenbund" confederation. However, the states of non-German speaking countries (USA, India) are called Bundesstaaten too, and - and here it becomes strange - the länder of the German Empire 1871-1918 are also called Bundesstaaten (not Reichsstaaten either), which can still be found in some legislative acts that have not been changed into nowadays' language. --84.154.80.173 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics

The previous version of this section of the article contained a reference to Willy Brandt being forced out of office in 1974 owing to the opposition controlling the Bundesrat, thus blocking Brandt's ability to pass legislation. I don't know whether the opposition controlled the Bundesrat in 1974, however, it is a generally acknowledged fact that the reason for Brandt's departure (and replacement by Helmut Schmidt) was the exposure of Günter Guillaume as an East German spy working as a close aide to Brandt and not whether the opposition could block Brandt's legislative proposals.Cvieg 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of State

Who is Head of State of the German States? Who formally appoints and dismisses the Minister-President and the government/cabinet? --thirty-seven 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In a German State, there is only one Head of State - that's the Minister-President. Minister-Presidents are appointed by election of the parliament and dismissed by the parliament (sometimes further possibilities for dismissal). Its a simplified democratic procedure...

The land of Southern Baden had a President of state until it fusioned to Baden-Württemberg. --84.154.80.173 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

State Picture Links

I've tried opening the page on States of Germany on Firefox 2.0, Opera 9.01, and Konqueror 3.5.2 on Linux, and all display the links of the states on the German map with a significant offset towards the upper left. Is it just me who has this problem? 193.136.122.18 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarifyme: Bremen and city states

I have added a tag, because I do not understand the sentence in the lead on the city states and I am not 100% confident I can state what the truth about it is.

"The cities of Berlin and Hamburg are states in their own right, termed Stadtstaaten (city states), while Bremen consists of two urban districts."

Is Bremen not a city state? Now, it sounds exactly like this. However, it is left open what it is in stead. I guess it is also a city state. Then I wonder what message the last part tries to convey. Has Bremen two districts in incontrast to the other two city states? Or, do they also have districts but unlike for the Bremen case their number is just omitted?

I hope some savvy user can clarify me. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The situation with Bremen is somewhat confusing. The state of Bremen actually consists of two noncontiguous pieces of territory: The city of Bremen and the city of Bremerhaven. Most of the population in the state is in the City of Bremen. The City of Bremen's legislature is made up of those members of the State of Bremen's legislature elected from the City; Bremerhaven has its own separately elected legislature. Berlin is divided into boroughs, and I imagine Hamburg is similarly subdivided, but the subdivisions in those cities is not as important as the state of Bremen's subdivisions. --Jfruh (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but all the things you've said about Bremen were known to me before. Unfortunately, this does not really answer the first question. I will give it a try. If you think I do something wrong just correct it.Tomeasy _{T C} 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen are all city-states, just Bremen consists of two parts (Bremen and Bremerhaven) while Berlin and Hamburg are divided in to boroughs like Jfruh suggested above. —dima/talk/ 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I assume my edit here was correct. BTW dima, Bremen is also in boroughs, so while is not really correct in your statement. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not, because Bremen is not subdivided because of it's noncontiguity, it's just two cities. Caballito (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To make this clear: The statement "The city of Bremen is a state in its own right" is simply wrong. The state of Bremen consists of two distinct cities, one of which is the city of Bremen, and the other is not the city of Bremen, nor part of it. That's why Bremen is sometimes called the "two cities state". The city of Bremen and the state of Bremen are two different entites, one being part of the other, but not identical. Caballito (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do not know why I did not see it like this before, but I think it is just like you have explained it. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

all three are city-states, but Bremen is two cities while Berlin and Hamburg each are just one city —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.6 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bremen has two cities, Bremen and Bremerhaven, an both together are "Freie Hansestadt Bremen". Bremen is also the state capital of "F H B". Bremerhaven is about 60km more north, and divided by lower saxony (Niedersachsen). And Bremen is mostly used as shortcut of "Freie Hansestadt Bremen" "caballito" is right with his statements. Gruß aus Deutschland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Freistaat

Currently we have this statement:

"The description free state (Freistaat) is merely used for historical reasons, when free state was added to the titles of states that were not monarchies."

It does not make much sense in respect for what we are trying to explain. Bavaria and Saxony, two of the modern three Freistaaten (free state), were Monarchies! However, the statement above insinuates rather the opposite. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Freistaat is a purist-German word for Republic (being "Republik" in Standard German). Most of the länder have called themselves this way after becoming republics. The länder that hold this title today also associate some more independent status, which has no basis in law (but does in feeling and tradition, at least in the case of Bavaria). --84.154.80.173 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Try to solve the problem! Did you understand what the problem with the current wording is? Tomeasy _{T C} 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a try. Could some native speaker please look after it? I knew why I just restored an older wording last time ... --Caballito (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the logical trap that existed in the previous wording is now circumvented. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vorpommern

Mecklenburg isn't translated ADAIK but Vorpommern is either Western Pomerania, Hither Pomerania (?) or Pomerania minor. We should put either (or an asterisk with a note) on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Table colourings

Hi, haven't read the article in depth as the table held all the information I needed - but does anyone know what the background colours of the rows represent? It's certainly not clear, could this be made more obvious? curlybap 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Which table do you mean? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This one... but I just realised (when I looked at it without sorting it) that it's just alternate. So nevermind, I'm just being silly again. curlybap 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Capital of the state of Bremen

Has the German state of Bremen a capital? --88.77.252.147 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no de jure capital, though the city of Bremen is often considered to be de facto capital. --Caballito (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

correct usage of the term

The best and most accurate term is federal-states used both by the German Federal and Austrian Federal Govts. when dealing with the Laender in the English Language! Calling them states is okay but technically federal-states suits the bill better making them a uniquely German/Austrian not like the case in the USA or Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.24.196 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)