Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 1
If this page should be more than a redirect to East Germany then it needs to talk about the area now - ie a discussion of east/west differences etc. Secretlondon 18:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Niko, what's that war you're waging? You cannot just cut out approaches that question the right wing view! And how many Germans Stalin killed is NOT pertaining to Eastern Germany, cruel as it might have been.*
- Sorry, I mixed up the versions here. But the first sentence holds true!
Pardon? I'm not sure what you mean. The deaths of 3 million East Germans are indeed highly relevant. Nico 20:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And "It is now considered politically extremely incorrect" is nothing but your point of view, and I will remove it again. Nico 20:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Try saying that publicly in Germany and see what happens! The the importance of the death toll is of course conceded, I just forgot to copy it.
Cheers, Max
It's still a point of view, and there are many Germans, for instance the approximately 2 million members of BdV or a Landsmannschaft, who are willing to say it publicly. That makes it a controversial issue. Thus, we have to avoid a sort of POV on it. Nico 21:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And the Landsmannschaften aren't politically incorrect with the term in the sense of "hurt nobody, scare nobody?" If I had wanted to spread my POV it would have been much different. In the article about Hitler there could be no moral judgment (which I didn't make), because it might disturb its objectivity regarding some people who are actually fond of killing Jews? Just a thought.
You may dislike the Landsmannschaften or the CDU/CSU or the Labour political party in Britain or whatever, but an encyclopedia still should be neutral. And conserning Hitler, as long as there are little accept for moral judgements in the articles dealing with Stalin and other war criminals, the Hitler article should be more NPOV as well in my opinion. Nico 22:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Which does not disprove my point that referring to the two wings of ex-German territory as being situated in Eastern Germany would be considered politically incorrect. Actually, that is an understatement. If a politician said it, people would consider him dangerously revanchist. But jedem das Seine. Who would benefit from a colder Hitler article? P.S.: Oh, yeah, seen your history. Won't correct your stuff any longer lest I run into more POV accusations. Much too exhausting. I know others have given up. I'll leave it up to the Americans who know the stories from Landser-mags. This way, it's not going to be balanced, but one is at a certain ease with being a German, cos, like, the others were always meaner.
Somewhat irritable, Max
I really don't think this article is the place for this. There are already articles on these groups - if only they believe this then it should stay there. Secretlondon 22:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Methinks it can very well stay as it is now. Max
I'm very sorry about the statement about "Americans" above. I know there are Americans writing for wiki with an amount of knowledge that I can never hope to attain, and with great political integrity. I just noticed that right-wing positions are swallowed much more naturally by many, which I sometimes doubt is healthy. For Germans, 50 years perpetrators, love victimizing themselves since 2000 for all kinds of things. DOn't believe all you hear
Sorry, Max
The rest of my statement remains unchanged.
Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive
I must admit that it breaks my hart to, basically, restore a User:Wik version, and I am suspicious of Wik's expertise when it comes to matters of contemporary Germany, BRD and DDR, but comparing the last version by Wik with the last version by Nico, the former is quite simply so much more correct and the latter so much more propagandist: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Eastern_Germany&diff=2663272&oldid=2654218
This is not to say that the version I restore, in my humble opinion, be perfect - only much less flawed than the current.
However, I strongly oppose the idea that the term "Middle Germany" should have been anyhow "invented" after 1945. I wasn't born then, but what happened, I guess, is that an already used term became politically charged.
--Ruhrjung 08:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
taken from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
Eastern Germany should be together with East Germany. Nico is removing an interesting staff from Erika Steinbach without any reason. Cautious 22:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Eastern Germany is a completely different article, and it not dealing with the German Democratic Republic. And the Gabrielle Lesser article is not about Erika Steinbach, and there is no need to copy the whole Erika Steinbach article. Besides, you are inserting strong POVs. Nico 22:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Eastern Germany cannot be about something else then East Germany, because both terms are too close to each other. Cautious 23:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have proposed to move East Germany to German Democratic Republic, which was rejected. As long as East Germany is dealing with the former state of DDR this article will stay here. Nico 23:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It should be crearly stated that this is only about irredentsim, Anyway misleadingCautious 23:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Peace treaty after WW2
Dealing with sentence: However, the final article of the memorandum said that the final regulations concerning Germany were subject to a separate peace treaty. This treaty wasn't signed until 1990.
The treaty was never signed. Why 1950 and 1970 treaties are missing. Cautious 23:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Because the 1970 treason by the DDR spy Herbert Frahm only recognized the borders temporarely as factual, although the areas were still considered rightfully German. Nico 23:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)