Talk:List of presidents of Germany: Difference between revisions
Sundostund (talk | contribs) |
BartBassist (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:::I'm glad to hear I'm supposed to be the list expert :) If you want my opinion, I personally prefer to have all officeholders (regular and acting) to be included in the main list (better to say, ''main lists'' because in this case we have 4 of them: Weimar Republic, West Germany, East Germany and reunified Federal Republic of Germany after 1990). --[[User:Sundostund|Sundostund]] ([[User talk:Sundostund|talk]]) 22:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
:::I'm glad to hear I'm supposed to be the list expert :) If you want my opinion, I personally prefer to have all officeholders (regular and acting) to be included in the main list (better to say, ''main lists'' because in this case we have 4 of them: Weimar Republic, West Germany, East Germany and reunified Federal Republic of Germany after 1990). --[[User:Sundostund|Sundostund]] ([[User talk:Sundostund|talk]]) 22:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Excellent. Sorry, RJFF, two votes to one. I'm doing it. I'll colour-code it accordingly, to make the acting status quite clear. [[User:BartBassist|BartBassist]] ([[User talk:BartBassist|talk]]) 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==The Saar== |
==The Saar== |
Revision as of 11:46, 8 June 2012
Hitler
I don't think Hitler should be included in this list, because he abolished the title President. His official title translates into English as "Leader and Reich Chancellor" - "President" is nowhere to be seen. The page should be amended to suit this. 82.19.94.146
Although Hitler never claimed the office of Reich President, he did assume its duties following the merger of that office with that of Reich Chancellor (Reichskanzler) upon the death of Reichspräsident Paul von Hindenburg on 2 August 1934. After the merger of the two offices, a "Präsidialkanzlei" (Presidential Chancellery) under the direction of Staatsminister (Minister of State) Dr. Otto Meissner (who was formerly the top aide to von Hindenburg) was created to assist Hitler in the performance of his duties as head of the German state. Hitler was the German head of state de facto and de jure (due in part to the passage of the Enabling Act by the Reichstag in 1933, which authorized Hitler to, among other things, issue a law combining the offices of President and Chancellor) and it is therefore appropriate to include Hitler in this list, at least in mentioning the technical vacancy of the office of Reichspräsident between von Hindenburg's death in 1934 and the appointment of Karl Dönitz by Hitler in 1945. Cvieg 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Hitler's reign must be reflected. A list with an eleven year gap hardly makes sense and Hitler was "de jure" head of state (there's no such thing as "de facto head of state).
- However, your explanation above contains one mistake after the other.
- Hitler did NOT combined the offices of Chancellor and President - he merely assumed the duties of the President, leaving the office (which also was not abolished) itself remained vacant.
- The Enabling Act did not authorise Hitler (more correctly, the cabinet) to combine the offices. In fact, the Enabling expressly forbad laws that would impair the existence of the President, the Reichstag or the Reichsrat. Str1977 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Colour
Who keeps changing the color of Hindenburg into dark red (communist)? The appropriate color for a conservative politician is blue.
Moving this article
Two points about recent events involving this article:
- It's not appropriate to move an article from one title to another by doing a cut-and-paste. You lose the article history and so it's against Wikipedia policy. (Moves should also be discussed on this talkpage first in case there are objections.)
- I see no reason to exclude the information about presidents from the GDR. From 1949-1990 the East German heads of state are just as relevant as the presidents of the FRG. Leaders of the German Democratic Republic overlaps but it covers a slightly different topic because it's about all leaders of the GDR, not just heads of state.
Iota (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does this list even exist?
Honestly people, this list makes absolutely no sense at all. Comparing a Reichspräsident to a Bundespräsident is just as moronic as comparing a Roman Emperor to a Holy Roman Emperor. Yes, the titles may sound similar, but they're so very much not the same. In fact the fathers (and mothers) of the modern day German constitution went to great length to make sure that a Bundespräsident had virtually nothing at all to do with a Reichspräsident, much like the modern day Bundeskanzler doesn't have a lot in common with his Reichskanzler predecessors. Furthermore no - and I can't stress this point enough - absolutely, completely, totally NO German constitutional expert would ever draw a line from the offices of the Weimar Republic to those of the Federal Republic of Germany (or, for that matter, those of the GDR). Why? Because the Weimar Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany are two completely different political entities with absolutely no ties whatsoever. So could somebody please stop creating legal and/or historical continuity where it doesn't exist? Because if not, I swear to you: I'll start an article called "America" and put absolutely everything in there, claiming continuity from the native american chieftains to the British King and the President of the United States. Sounds crazy? Well, so is this list! --Eisenmaus (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Putting similarly named heads of state of the same state seems (and yes, that is the dominant view of German constitutional law - that there ist one nation state that existed since 1871), whose offices developed out of each other (which can be clearly deduced from the origins of the Basic Law of 1949), into one list seems way less moronic than shouting about it. Have fun with editing America. Str1977 (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tell a German constitutional expert that there are "no ties whatsoever" to the legal system of the Weimar Republic... And I'd even think it making sense to make a list from Julius Caesar the Elder down to Blessed Charles of Austria and Hungary, and I think that Joseph Roth might emphatically agree. With a side note to the Greeks after 800. The French - though this may be a stereotype - wouldn't be all foreign to the idea of calling President Sarkozy a successor to not only St. Louis, Henry le Bon, Louis XVI or Hugo Capet, but even Charles the Great, Chlovis and Vercingetorix; and they as well wouldn't entirely be wrong. --93.133.219.196 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Acting???
What does it mean "acting" next to the names of Hans Luther and Walter Simons??? 95.35.228.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC).
- That they weren't presidents but merely filled in during a vacancy, the former being Chancellor, the latter being Chief Justice. Str1977 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we include acting presidents in the main list? For the sake of completeness, I feel that we should. There is a separate table of acting presidents at the bottom of the page, but they are much easier to place if listed in their chronological place in the full list. I propose including them in the list like this. I suspect that RJFF may disagree. BartBassist (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. "Acting presidents" are no presidents. They don't belong in the list of "proper presidents". It's ok to have them in a separate list. --RJFF (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like an opinion on this point (including acting presidents in the main list) from User:Sundostund, the list expert. BartBassist (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear I'm supposed to be the list expert :) If you want my opinion, I personally prefer to have all officeholders (regular and acting) to be included in the main list (better to say, main lists because in this case we have 4 of them: Weimar Republic, West Germany, East Germany and reunified Federal Republic of Germany after 1990). --Sundostund (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. Sorry, RJFF, two votes to one. I'm doing it. I'll colour-code it accordingly, to make the acting status quite clear. BartBassist (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The Saar
Since between 1949 and 1990, there were more than one states in Germany, I figure that the third one should be included, so I did...Ericl (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. While the Saarland was indeed a separate state of German nationality (just as Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Brandenburg), it did not claim to be Germany. It should not be included. Deposuit (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- IT should be included because it was part of Germany prior to 1945 and was again in the 1950s, it was within the 1946 borders of Germany and was part of the French zone of occupation. France did NOT want it to rejoin Germany because they coveted it resources, but they Saarlanders wanted in. There were three separate states within the allotted German territory which constitute the current Federal Republic. The four victorious powers recognized the two Germanies and the Saar in the early 1950s.Ericl (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- No it should not be included as - in contrast to the FRG or the GDR - it never claimed to be the state of Germany. The Saar is comparable to other German states like Bavaria or Hamburg that for a while existed without FRG or GDR as well. What you write about French and native wishes is correct but this doesn't make the Saar a third German state. According to your logic, we would have to include all 18 German states that existed prior to 1949 because Germany then was split into that many states.
- Furthermore, list it as one would fix matters in regard to other states that at one point in time were part of Germany, then got separated but never returned to the fold. Talk Luxemburg, talk Austria. Should we rigg the list based on the hindsight that nowadays they no longer want to? The current territory cannot be the criterion, given that the list includes the much larger Weimar Republic. Deposuit (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- IT should be included because it was part of Germany prior to 1945 and was again in the 1950s, it was within the 1946 borders of Germany and was part of the French zone of occupation. France did NOT want it to rejoin Germany because they coveted it resources, but they Saarlanders wanted in. There were three separate states within the allotted German territory which constitute the current Federal Republic. The four victorious powers recognized the two Germanies and the Saar in the early 1950s.Ericl (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move per request. I do see the point both sides are making on the "German presidents" vs. "of Germany", but discussion on that secondary issue is not extensive enough, so I suggest that if anyone feels strongly about it, a subsequent request should be made, where it can be focused on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
List of German presidents since 1919 → List of German presidents — As a list of all German presidents, including the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, East and West Germany, and Germany after reunification, it doesn't seem necessary to include "since 1919" in the article title. Other than the listed individuals, there have been no other German presidents; before the end of the First World War, Germany was an empire, and before that there wasn't a unified German state. Compare this with List of Presidents of France, a list which comprises French presidents of multiple republics dating back to 1848, when the presidency was created. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Support per nom. warrior4321 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Makes sense to me, even possibly uncontroversial. We'll see! Andrewa (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense. It's all going far too well so far! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Makes perfect sense to me. WP:NC states that article titles should be concise and only as precise as is necessary. "since 1919" is unnecessary as argued above and means the title isn't as concise as it could be. Dpmuk (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support, the "since 1919"-part is not needed at all. Flamarande (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - sensible move but I request that this article should be moved to List of Presidents of Germany in line with similar articles such as List of Presidents of France and List of Presidents of the United States. Green Giant (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- That wouldn't work here. From the end of the Allied occupation in 1949 to German reunification in 1990 there were two Germam states, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, with two heads of states. Someone like Erich Honecker of East Germany was a a German head of state; he was not, however, President of Germany. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.117.93 (talk)
- I don't see why it wouldn't work. We already list the East German heads of state alongside the West German ones. Honecker might not have had the title of President but we can't ignore Wilhelm Pieck's term as State President. Green Giant (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that (regardless of his title) Wilhelm Pieck and other East German (and West German) leaders were not heads of state of Germany, but heads of state of a smaller political entity. I just think its simpler to use the wording "German presidents". City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support, don't see how the article got here in the first place. I'm not sure about "German presidents" vs. "presidents of Germany," but I do agree with Green Giant that I don't think the fact that there were two German states really makes the latter untenable. john k (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.