Talk:East Germany

Partially recognized, 1949 to 1972?

East Germany partially recognized from 1949 to 1972? This is news to me. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It was recognized by other members of the Warsaw Pact and some other governments. TFD (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Only the FRG, under the Hallstein Doctrine, didn't recognize the GDR until 1972. The country doesn't appear in the List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies nor in the List of states with limited recognition. The non-recognition ended with the 1971 Four Power Agreement on Berlin and the Basic Treaty, 1972. FRG Chancellor Willy Brandt associated his name with that new Ostpolitik. Wakari07 (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

But I learn that according to itself, the United States did not recognize the GDR until 1974. I have no idea why. (State Dept.) Wakari07 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Is this all a part of the Hallstein Doctrine which appears to have been intended to limited recognition of the GDR outside of the Soviet Union rather than just limit the FRG's recognition of the GDR. The above linked article seems to say it was. E.g.

The western allies, in various agreements, including the General Treaty of 1955, had agreed to recognize only the Federal Republic of Germany. The western occupying powers (France, Britain, and the USA) accepted the continued existence of the pre-existing German State; and the New York Declaration of 18 September 1950 stated that they "regard[ed] the government of the Federal Republic of Germany as the only German government freely and legitimately constituted and therefore entitled to speak for the German nation in international affairs".[13] An unpublished "interpretative minute" produced at the same time clarifies that the formula did not constitute recognition of the Government of the Federal Republic as the de jure government of all Germany".[13]

and

Whenever the German Democratic Republic opened some form of representation in another country, they attempted to persuade that country to open a similar representation in the German Democratic Republic. Although they were willing to provide financial inducements for this purpose, their success was limited.[4]:39 For the first stage in developing diplomatic relations, the German Democratic Republic often used the assistance of the local communist party in the country, and East German journalists were also pressed into service.[4]:32–33 The next stage was to establish a trade agreement . This was not especially problematic, because the Federal Republic of Germany did not object to trade relations, providing it did not involve explicit diplomatic recognition.

and

"trade missions" and using diplomatic titles for their officers. This met with resistance on the part of the Federal Republic of Germany.[4]:36–37 The final stage that the German Democratic Republic aimed for was to establish a consulate general. This usually involved issuing an exequatur, a document that guarantees the consul's rights and privileges. This was regarded by the Federal Republic of Germany as equivalent to official diplomatic recognition and could be expected to be met with sanctions of some form. Countries such as Egypt attempted to avoid upsetting either side by issuing an exequatur but adding a note that it did not imply recognition of the German Democratic Republic. Right up to 1969, however, the German Democratic Republic was not able to achieve full diplomatic representation – with two possible exceptions:

and

The doctrine seemed to succeed for a long time in isolating the GDR, at least from important Western or Third World states. But it also limited the federal government's politics, and in the 1960s it became more and more difficult to maintain. In several cases, the doctrine was in fact not applied. When, in 1957, the GDR opened an office in Cairo to establish contact with the entire Arab world, the Federal Republic did not withdraw its ambassador from Egypt. Moreover, when in 1965 the Federal Republic established diplomatic relations with Israel, many Arab states ceased theirs with the Federal Republic but did not recognise the GDR. This eventually happened after 1967, because the GDR had supported the Arab states in the Six-Day War. The doctrine was also not applied to Cambodia in 1969, although it had recognised the GDR. The Federal Republic established diplomatic relations with Romania in 1967 and reestablished those with Yugoslavia in 1968. The government's argument was that the communist states had been in fact forced to recognise the GDR and should not be punished for that.

and

The doctrine was applied twice, to Yugoslavia in 1957, and to Cuba in 1963. Both had first recognized the GDR.

etc.

The doctrine wasn't always successful, but it seems to have severely curtailed recognition of the GDR. The US recognition in 1974 came I presume as a result of Ostpolitik which lead to the Four Power Agreement on Berlin and the Basic Treaty, 1972. A little slow, but this shouldn't be that surprising given US politics.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For the purpose of the article though, the lag in recognition of East Germany by 'Western' countries is not relevant; as from 1974 onwards there was no question that the GDR was universally recognised both in diplomatic practice and in international law as a fully independent sovereign state. In that, it parallels the post-war Republic of Austria - which the Western Powers originally rejected as a Soviet puppet state, but (rather more rapidly than was the case for the GDR) eventually recognised. It is true that, following the Basic Treaty of 1972, the Federal Republic tried to maintain both that it recognised the GDR 'in international law as an independent sovereign state' while still refusing to recognise it as 'a sovereign state in international law'; but no other country followed them in this (and indeed most German legal scholars considered the distinction to be totally meaningless). And of course, the Reunication treaty of 1990 was entirely dependent for its legality on the prior recognition of the GDR by the Federal Republic as a de iure German state. TomHennell (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The mention of the lag is relevant to the drag in this story. Wakari07 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I expect this lack of recognition is why West Germany absorbed East Germany rather than forming a merger between two states. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that the Reunification Treaty was exactly that; a merger between two formerly independent states. As it happened, that merger was on the basis of East Germany chosing to declare its accession to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic - subject to fundamental changes being made to that Basic Law before that accession could come into effect. But the process was the sovereign choice of East Germany alone, taking the form of an action of the East German Volkskammer as the legislature of a sovereign state according to the mechanisms of its own constitution. If West Germany had not recognised East Germany as a sovereign state, then the Federal Republic would not have been legally bound by the Volkskammer's legislative actions. All of this subsequently became the occasion of repeated attempts to have key terms of the Reunification Treaty ruled unconstitutional; attempts which the Federal Constitutional Court rejected, exactly on the basis that East Germany had remained an independent sovereign state right up to the moment of Reunification. Hence post-reunification litigation in respect of actions within East Germany before 3 October 1990 was bound by East German, not West German, laws. TomHennell (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

TomHennell, it's a coincidence then that the 2-3 December 1989 Malta Summit talking points concerning the sovereignty of East Berlin are or are not in accordance with the 1 December 1989 version of the Constitution of East Germany, disculping the SED leadership's monopoly of power for the collapse of the GDR? Wakari07 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

All of Berlin continued until 1990 to be recognized as being administered by the Soviet Union, the U.S., UK and France, and not part of either German state. Today most of the world does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank of Jerusalem, it does not mean it does not recognize Israel. TFD (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: please correct to West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Arab/East part of Al Quds/Jerusalem. Wakari07 (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Wakari07, you will need to spell out your argument in more detail; as so far you point eludes me. The process of German reunification involved an elaborately staged choreography of concurrent actions along (at least) five tracks; the Four plus Two treaty negotiations on ending WWII, the winding-up of the Allied Control Council, the final treaty determination of Germany's eastern boundaries, the Reunification treaty itself, and the associated constitutional arrangements for East Germany to be extinguised and the reconstituted East German States to be admitted into the Federal Republic. Which track was at any one time represented the actual process of reunification was always kept undefined - deliberately so. But all tracks required the active contribution of East Germany state; hence without the GDR being fully recognised by all parties as a sovereign state in international law, none of the tracks could have proceeded. Which was how the Federal Constitutional Court subsequently justified that recognition. All organs of the German state - and within that of the Federal Republic - were bound by an overriding duty to work for reunification. That duty extended to the German nation as a whole; since in German constitutional theory, the nation is an organ of the state. Hence the former principles of non-recognition (and then limited recognition) became obsolete - indeed unconstitutional - once there was a prospect of full unification by means of a treaty between the FRG and the GDR as separate sovereign states. TomHennell (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is that the SED is not legally responsible for events after 1 December 1989, nor is Gorbatchov morally to blame for events after 2-3 December 1989. If it indeed proves an "elaborate choreography" staged before the 18 March 1990 democratic justificative elections... then by who? As a kid, we were supposed to believe that people power did it. Cui bono? Wakari07 (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair points Wakari07, but not perhaps that relevant to the issue in hand, at least as I understood it; which was whether East Germany was not fully recognised as a sovereign state before unification. My view being that it was. Certainly neither the SED, nor Gorbachev, were in a position to direct the way things turned out during 1990. The 'elaborate choreography' became necessary once Kohl's orignal ten-point plan for German unification rang alarm bells with the rest of Europe; in that it appeared to suggest that Kohl envisaged reunification happening first, without a formal ending of WWII. But as things turned out 'people power' was a lot more decisive than most commentators in 1989 assumed it would be. Mostly it was assumed that the GDR would democratise and adopt a free-market economy (and participate in the ending of WWII) as continuing sovereign state; only moving to reunification some years later (probably on the basis of a completely new all-German constitution. But the 1990 elections gave a clear mandate for rapid unification; accelerated by the economic union at a rate of 1 to 1 - which devastated East German industry, but was clearly strongly popular with the East German population. Of course most parties contesting the East German elections were strongly influenced by West German parties (who throughout prioritised perceived party interests); so that the CDU allies were constrained to promote joining the FRG as it stood; where the SPD allies were constrained to seek a new constitutional settlement. But in the end, it was the East German vote that was decisive. TomHennell (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Kohl was indeed a top proxy, a focal point for the plan. And the origins and workings of his 10-point plan remain unfairly not well documented on Wikipedia. Wakari07 (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But back on topic. Wakari07 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact membership

Why mention East Germany's Warsaw Pact membership in the infobox, when we don't have it mentioned in the infoboxes of other former Warsaw Pact members? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe nobody thought about it before. Wakari07 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because the other countries left the Warsaw Pact but East Germany stopped existing? Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg stopped existing in 1356 or 1423, yet its overlord the Holy Roman Empire, although it existed until 1806, is not mentioned in the infobox. I think I'd rather add this kind of info. That's for me the point of WP:BOLD. Wakari07 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Done Wakari07 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't mention NATO membership in info-boxes either. NATO was the Western collective security pact, and still exists. TFD (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Eastern Bloc" and "Communism" portals and numerous links to Cold War already stand out clearly in the article. However, why not note the effective delegated sovereignty obtained by the Soviet Union-driven Warsaw Pact membership? I think I'm changing my opinion to yes, include Warsaw Pact membership in all countries' infoboxes. It's useful for oversight. Wakari07 (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Also useful to mention would be the economic complement of the military Warsaw Pact, the COMECON membership. Wakari07 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC) (1950-1990) Wakari07 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, in the Hungarian People's Republic, Polish People's Republic and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic articles, have "Member of the Warsaw Pact (yyyy-yyyy)" in the infobox. Hungary additionally sports the sourced status "Satellite state of the Soviet Union". Wakari07 (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Strong claims require strong WP:RS. I am tempted to remove this edit, but as I wish to remain neutral on all things German politics, I'll leave it to someone else to delete or source. That said, I might well protect the article yet again, and probably for a lot longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

GDR or DDR?

The abbreviations used for East Germany in German were SBZ and DDR, and in English sometimes GDR and sometimes DDR - the main time I saw GDR used in English was on medals leagues for the Olympic Games.

The article clearly needs to mention both abbreviations in the lede, which it does. But elsewhere it would be best to use one or the other. Currently, there are 94 mentions of GDR and 31 mentions of DDR. I would prefer either using East German/East Germany or DDR.

A recent edit changed one instance of GDR to DDR.[1] @Sirlanz: if you are going to change from one to the other, please could you do it for the whole article so it is consistent.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Copying something I previously posted from the archives (Archive 9, to be exact):

My memory seems to tell me that GDR was more commonly used in the '80s. Doing a google search, DDR comes up more often but there are some interesting anomalies on that search page. Several of the sites that come up when searching "DDR Germany" actually seem to be using GDR themselves.

From Der Spiegel's English site: Homesick for a Dictatorship: Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life ... www.spiegel.de › English Site › Germany › Eastern Germany Jul 3, 2009 - Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two ... In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.

From the Guardian: Back in the GDR: Berlin's East Germany museum | Travel | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com › Travel › Berlin holidays Mar 13, 2013 - The Berlin museum is a fascinating, if slightly contradictory, look back at life in the German Democratic Republic, capturing the ambiguities of ...

Probably best to just leave it as is. --Khajidha (talk) 8:58 am, 9 May 2017, Tuesday (11 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−4)

--Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain clearly. The current article uses both GDR and DDR. I would prefer that it used one or the other.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I simply forgot to state that I felt that the standardization should be to GDR. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Auferstanden aus Ruinen.oga

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Housing

Why the article does not mention that the state provided almost free housing for everybody, and the young couples could be allotted land and building material fo free if they wanted to build theri own house?Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)