Talk:German People's Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class)
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
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


The article currently makes it sound a bit too much like the DVP had one unitary ideology. It was in fact riven by disputes between factions, which ranged from center-right to far-right, and differed greatly in their view of the Weimar Republic. For example, after 1922 or so, the faction around Gustav Stresemann was considered the party's left wing, participated in Weimar government to shore it up against anti-democratic forces, and even worked with the SPD on occasion. Other factions were further right, ranging from the right faction around Ernst Scholtz to the far-right factions around people like Reinhold Quaatz and Oskar Maretzky. --Delirium (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideology's final sentence[edit]

Although the party was considered a liberal party in the Weimar Republic, its policies would appear conservative, by modern European standards.

It seems the author is confusing classical liberalism (which would today be considered fiscal conservatism -- free trade, anti-regulation, etc), which was the definition prevalent during Weimar Germany, and the modern definition of "liberal", which is basically a umbrella term for anything left of center. Classical liberalism was distinctly "right", compared to both contemporary and modern ideologies.

So, I'm just going to remove that sentence and wiki link the word "liberal" in the article to the classical liberalism article. It might be worthwhile to change the final sentence into an explanation of what liberal means in this context, but I don't see any reason to have such an explanation here rather than every other article that uses the term liberal in the classical sense. (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)