Talk:East Germany/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The Lead

I started this thread because the previous has developed into unhelpful argumentation. The lead seems to focus solely on the Berlin Wall and emigration, rather than reflect the overall content of the article. Could someone please re-write it or provide a draft. TFD (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the intro could be better worded. It's long, and I agree some of the detail about emigration (important tho it is) could go into the body text. The intro also misses important points... Yes, it's a historical fact that the GDR was set up in the Soviet occupation zone, and remained closely associated with the USSR thru the Cold War, but to say it was "established by the Soviet Union" is to overlook the role played by German communists and other Germans who were willing to work with the Soviets. I'm also a bit concerned that the present intro follows Basil Fawlty's advice "Don't mention the War!" — I mean the Second World War — although it is mentioned in the body of the article. Another point is that the description of GDR's borders says nothing about West Berlin, which was geographically inside East Germany, but politically not...

OK, here is my draft for a reworded lead...

"The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a German state closely allied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War period. It ruled the part of Germany where Soviet occupation forces were stationed at the end of the Second World War. Its dominant political group was the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, formed in 1946 from a merger of communist and socialist parties. The GDR itself was established in 1949. It had an area of 107,771 km² (41,610 mi²), bordering Czechoslovakia to the south, West Germany to the south and west, Poland to the east, and the Baltic Sea to the north. West Berlin was geographically inside East Germany, but was never under GDR control. Borders of the GDR were heavily fortified, and people trying to leave without permission were sometimes shot. The GDR was dissolved in 1990, when Germany was re-united after a non-violent revolution and international negotiations." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Poorly written lead section, and historical revisionism

The lead section appears to be poorly written and structured. The second paragraph at least needs to be divided into two to make it readable prose.

It also appears that there are sentences that are constructed in a way that promotes historical revisionism (negationism), for example

• "Some East Germans saw the state as illegitimate" (the majority population did, as is established by historical scholarship)
• "Some East Germans regularly referred to the Socialist Unity Party as "the Russian party"" (the majority did)
• "while viewing West Germany as more socially and politically 'attractive'." (the sentence reads like it could have been written by the East German Propaganda Ministry, by portraying this is a somewhat odd belief by those who held it. In reality, almost everyone who were imprisoned in a totalitarian state viewed the democratic alternative as the more attractive one)

Also, the pecular use of "some" in these contexts is obviously an attempt to downplay the mainstream opinion and promote fringe views, i.e. the views of the extremist anti-democratic far-left/the East German communist party.

The lead section also needs to clearly, somewhere in the opening, identify its form of government (dictatorship) and the lead needs to mention how the state was totalitarian, especially before the 1960s.

Also, the opening sentence should identify it as a Communist state, the common term used in the English language for this type of states, and for which we have an article. As this is an English language encyclopedia, and not a Russian or East German one, we use the common English term. Mocctur (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The East Germans wern't as negative as some people think, with the exception of the USSR, the East German regime had the most solid support base. --TIAYN (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that I am not a reliable source and this is original research, but I am from former East Germany and all of my family and relatives and their friends have lived there. Most of them were critical of the regime, but I have never heared of anyone referring to the Socialist Unity Party as the "Russian party". The statement refers to several reliable sources, so I do not demand to remove it, but I strongly doubt that the people using this term were the majority. Neither did they explicitly see the state as illegitimate. They didn't think about the question of whether it was legitimate or not. They didn't like the government, but they didn't see the "state as illegitimate". --RJFF (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion on this talk page, it is interesting that the current introduction has been criticized both as an anti-GDR slander and a revisionist whitewash. I'd agree that the term "socialist state" is too vague, and that there should be earlier mention of dominance of the SEP and its character as a communist party. Suggest a shorter intro, concentrating on hard historical facts, not debatable assertions about public opinions... How about this?

" The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state established in 1949, in regions of Germany occupied by the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. It was dominated by its communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The state was a consistent Soviet ally through the Cold War period, but was weakened by emigration to West Germany, which the GDR government tried to prevent by fortifying its western borders and establishing the Berlin Wall. East Germany experienced a peaceful revolution in 1989. The following year, following free elections and international negotiations, the GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited. " Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I couldn't agree more. Your proposal is well-balanced, concise without over-simplifying and focused on the most important features. --RJFF (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The page is currently locked, meaning right now changes can only be made be an administrator. Which in my experience administrators are happy to do, IF there is a consensus for the change. So what do others here think about the wording I've suggested? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed wording is better but Replace "dominated by its Communist Party" with it was "almost totally controlled by its Communist Party". Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

replaced dominated with ruled... even if there were other parties, it was the Communist Party which ruled the GDR throughout its whole history.... Its the same case with modern China and North Korea, many parties, one ruling party. And replace just "state" with "socialist state", or Marxist Leninist state. --TIAYN (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a great improvement. I wonder if we could add the official names for the regions occupied by the Soviets (the "Soviet Zone") and the alliance (the "Warsaw Pact"). I do not agree with TIAYN that we should call the GDR a socialist state, that is what they called themselves. Perhaps "ruled by its communist party...along Marxist-Leninist lines". TFD (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-GDR sources also called it socialist, the majority of sources calls its socialist... It could be worded as "a socialist state based upon [or "based upon the ideology of Marxism-Leninism" or just "a socialist state espousing Marxism-Leninism"] Marxism-Leninism.. But the word socialist should be included.. --TIAYN (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with "ruled" instead of "dominated", and with mentioning the Soviet Zone and the Warsaw Pact. Don't mind keeping word "socialist", provided there is some explanation of what is meant. How's this now?

" The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state established in 1949 in the region of Germany occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War (known as the Soviet occupation zone). It was a socialist state with a centrally planned economy, and was ruled by its communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The GDR was a consistent ally of the Soviet Union through the Cold War period, and became a founding member of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. The state was weakened by emigration to West Germany, which the GDR government tried to prevent by fortifying its western borders and establishing the Berlin Wall. East Germany experienced a peaceful revolution in 1989. The following year, after free elections and international negotiations, the GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited. " Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I approve, just link to the word socialist state in the lead and its perfect. --TIAYN (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposal still doesn't mention that it wasn't democratic, which is one of the most important things that the lead needs to convey. Nazi Germany has this important piece of information in the opening sentence:

"Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany when it was a totalitarian state ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). "

Similarly, this lead section could say something along the lines of:

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a totalitarian state established in 1949 in the region of Germany occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War (known as the Soviet occupation zone) by the Soviet occupying forces, and ruled by the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, known as the East German Communist Party. While East Germany remained under military Soviet occupation, it was proclaimed as a sovereign state and was an ally of the Soviet Union through the Cold War period and a founding member of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. A self-described socialist state, it was referred to as a communist state in the West and commonly regarded as one of the Soviet satellite states.

I don't think the Berlin Wall should be addressed in the very first defining paragraph, but somewhere below in the lead section (which may include until 4 paragraphs). Mocctur (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mocctur -- the totalitarian nature of the state is a central element, and one enforced on a daily basis by the Stasi. Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

...And here we go again. Throw as many McCarthyite buzzwords as we can into the lede, and never mind objectivity. Why not add the bit about them eating babies as well (or was that another bunch of Germans...)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Our articles are based on established views, not fringe views. This has absolutely nothing to do with "McCarthyism"; just as complaining of Anti-Nazism in the lead section of Nazi Germany is ridiculous. East Germany's current official name in Germany is the SED Dictatorship[1]. Mocctur (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you show us where in the body of the article the term 'totalitarian' is used, and what source is cited for it? The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a collection of buzzwords. As for your comment about "East Germany's current official name in Germany" not only is it off-topic, it is bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you register your own blog or something? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and doesn't give fringe views undue weight. The article already cites, for example, Mary Fulbrook, "The Limits Of Totalitarianism: God, State and Society in the GDR," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Jan 1957, Vol. 7 Issue 1, pp 25–52, but more should certainly be added regarding how the GDR was a dictatorship/totalitarian. I can see now why the article is in such a poor shape. The lead is supposed to be a concise summary of what the SED Dictatorship was, as most reliable sources see it. If some political party like Deutsche Kommunistische Partei claims the GDR was a democracy, not a dictatorship (in contrast to the official position and accepted scholarly view), then that's hardly worth more than a footnote somewhere and doesn't impact how this lead section should be. Mocctur (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the federal government agency responsible for matters relating to the former GDR refers to this entity as the "SED-Diktatur" (SED Dictatorship). Mocctur (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How is objecting to a violation of WP:LEDE guidelines 'original thought'? As for the source you cite, does it state for a fact that Fullbrook considered the DDR 'totalitarian', and if so can you give us a page number - then maybe we can consider putting her opinion in the body of the article. As for claims that the DDR was a democracy, that is a complete red herring - I never suggested anything of the kind. If you think that there are only two possibilities, 'democracy' and 'totalitarianism', I suggest you do a little more research.

And no, linking the same source twice doesn't provide the slightest bit of evidence that "East Germany's current official name in Germany is the SED Dictatorship" - nowhere in the article linked does it make any such statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. having looked at Fulbrook's Limits of Totalitarianism article, I note that she describes the "concept of totalitarianism" as "a pejorative term", and writes that "it must, I think, be queried from the standpoint of a would-be value-free historical science" (p.48). I take it that there are no objections to us using this source in the article in regard to 'totalitarianism' (it is already cited for something else). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mocctur, I'd agree that the intro should make clear that the GDR was not a democracy. I can't, however, agree with the way you've used "totalitarian" in the first sentence of your draft.

In that draft, you've linked to the WP article totalitarianism (redirect from totalitarian state). As that page says in its lead "The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era, in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other." The just-quoted statement is backed by no less than five citations. The article goes on to present academic arguments both for and against the term — yes, there are scholars who use it, but it is clearly a problematic and contested concept.

Perhaps there is a better way to make clear that the GDR was not a democracy. How about we mention the Stasi in the intro? I don't think anyone will dispute their existence and importance... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If the wish is to 'make clear that the GDR was not a democracy' (which by all reasonable definitions it wasn't), then we should say so directly, rather than 'mentioning the Stasi' - though again, per WP:LEDE, such material must reflect what is said in the body of the article. It shouldn't be hard to find reputable sources for such a statement - but they should be found, and cited, in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you've made valid points about Fulbrook and "totalitarian", and WP:LEDE. Do you have any thoughts about the drafts I suggested earlier in this thread, which a number of other editors have supported? Here's the most recent one again...

" The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state established in 1949 in the region of Germany occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War (known as the Soviet occupation zone). It was a socialist state with a centrally planned economy, and was ruled by its communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The GDR was a consistent ally of the Soviet Union through the Cold War period, and became a founding member of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. The state was weakened by emigration to West Germany, which the GDR government tried to prevent by fortifying its western borders and establishing the Berlin Wall. East Germany experienced a peaceful revolution in 1989. The following year, after free elections and international negotiations, the GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited. "

Do you think this would be an improvement over the current lead, or do you think the current lead is better, or can you suggest something better than either? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - a definite improvement. It is much more concise and to the point. I think the sentence starting 'The state was weakened by emigration...' might need a little tweaking though - can we assert this as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice? It is perhaps also a little vague, in as much as it doesn't say how it was weakened: economically? politically? Also, though this subject is discussed again in the body of the article, I can't see where it is actually sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The body of the main text around footnote 33 now reads, "Western economic opportunities and lack of political freedom in East Germany induced a brain drain." Let's add this The refugees were young and well-educated, many of them were professionals and engineers who represented the human capital that was essential to the survival of the East German economy. with this citation: Emma Haddad (2008). The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns. Cambridge University Press. pp. 144–5. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Kalidasa's draft is a great improvement over the current lead. I strongly support using his draft to replace it. --RJFF (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Totalitarianism: This is a widely accepted scholarly term today, and it's also widely used when describing the GDR (as also the German Wikipedia notes). Obviously it has had its critics, like most terms, especially in the past and in the Eastern Bloc. There are historians such as Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen who argue Nazi Germany wasn't totalitarian either, being far too disorganized to be considered totalitarian. Yet the article describes Nazi Germany as a totalitarian state in its opening sentence. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with a rewording of this, mentioning how the state was not democratic (as unanimously agreed, and despite unfounded claims above, this entity is referred to as the SED Dictatorship by the German authorities today, this is even part of the name of the agency responsible for matters relating to the former GDR), and that is was also considered a totalitarian state by modern scholars, especially during its early history. For example: "East Germany was regarded as a dictatorship ruled by its communist party; despite having elections, they were not free. Many scholars also regard it as a totalitarian state, especially during its early history, while some [Eckhard Jesse] consider it an authoritarian state with totalitarian features during its late history." (precise sources can be added if necessary) It could also be worthwhile to mention the widely used term "the second German dictatorship (cf. the German Wikipedia). Mocctur (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new lede...

My thanks RJFF, TIAYN, TFD, and Andy for given general support to my proposed new lede. I agree with Andy that the point about emigration needs tweaking. I've been thinking more about the point made by Mocctur (and supported by Rjensen), that the lede needs more clarity about what sort of state the GDR really was... I'm not sure whether a description in one or two words is going to work, whether that description is "totalitarian" or something else... Perhaps better to include a couple of sentences about how the GDR party/coalition system actually operated? (Yes, the added information I'm suggesting for the lede is already there in the body of the article...)

How does this look now?

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state established in 1949 in the region of Germany occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War (known as the Soviet occupation zone).

The GDR was a socialist state with a centrally planned economy. It was ruled by its communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Several other parties existed, but they were not permitted to compete for votes against the Socialist Unity Party until 1990. Instead they took part in an SUP-dominated coalition, and voters were asked to approve a prearranged list of candidates from the coalition. (The coalition was called the National Front of Democratic Germany.)

The GDR was a consistent ally of the Soviet Union through the Cold War period, and became a founding member of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. Emigration to West Germany was a significant problem — as many of the emigrants were young well-educated people, it weakened the state economically. The GDR government tried to stop people leaving by fortifying its western borders and establishing the Berlin Wall.

East Germany experienced a peaceful revolution in 1989. The following year, after free elections and international negotiations, the GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a great improvement over the existing lead. I suggest putting it in as is, and we can address any minor changes later. TFD (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of the country was the role of the Stasi -- which deserves mention. Also its foreign-policy was controlled by the Soviet Union. Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some problems with this:

1. The very first paragraph and the opening, defining sentence is in itself supposed to be a concise summary of the article (eg. "Barack Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States.") Describing it as a "state" isn't sufficient. There is an article specifically for states ruled by communist parties during the Cold War, named communist state. The opening and defining sentence should refer to it as a communist state, which is the common English term for this kind of states. We can also mention in the lead that it considered itself a socialist state.
2. The lead should specifically mention that it was not democratic, mention that is widely considered totalitarian (at the very least at times and to varying degrees, see above), and have links to the relevant articles on the forms of government in question.
3. I think there are too many details regarding how other parties were allowed to operate, and yet, too little (these parties hardly ever took positions contrary to the SED position, it was not just the election system, but the overall impact of the GDR being a dictatorship ruled by a single party. Opposition politicians and even their families were sometimes sent to jail or worse). It would be better to have a more brief summary stating that "East Germany had elections, but they were not considered free until 1990".
4. "The GDR was a consistent ally of the Soviet Union" is a problematic wording as it implies the GDR voluntarily chose to be a Soviet ally, which was not the case; it was a state established by the Soviet Union as a satellite state, remaining under military occupation, with a party chosen by the Soviet Union as its rulers, similar to Nazi puppet regimes in some countries.
5. The lead needs to mention the concept of Soviet satellite states, specifically, the GDR being considered one.
6. "East Germany experienced a peaceful revolution" should be more precise: "Popular protest against the communist regime culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Peaceful Revolution during 1989–1990, leading to the GDR being dissolved and its territory reunited with West Germany in 1990".
7. The lead should also generally mention the system of oppression and the Stasi (without too much detail).

Mocctur (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your article says that the term "communist state" was in "popular usage" and that it is "contradictio in terminis" (contradiction in terms). We should avoid ambiguity. Otherwise I do not see your recommendations present a neutral tone. Compare them with the lead for Saudi Arabia. It is a dictatorship owned by the Saud family, has public beheadings, stonings and crucifixion for adultery or leaving the church, among many other "offenses", bans Christian worship, does not treat AIDS patients, has total press censorship, bans political parties, demonstations and criticism of the government, and may have as many as 30,000 political prisoners and supported al Qaeda. Yet the only negative mention is that women are not allowed to drive. Already the proposed lead makes the GDR appear to be a far worse place than Saudi Arabia. TFD (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant comparison would be Nazi Germany; compare that lead to the one we are discussing. The article as it currently is doesn't present a neutral tone because it promotes fringe views and is not based on mainstream views at all. The GDR is regarded as a dictatorship, whether you like it or not. Not describing it as a dictatorship is not neutral. Mocctur (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't agree Nazi Germany is a relevant comparison. The leaders of the GDR did not start a global war, and did not build gas chambers. In those 2 respects, the GDR does have more in common with Saudi Arabia... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mocctur that the first sentence ought to say more than just "a state". After all, it's obvious that something called a republic would have a been a "state" of some description. Also agree with TFD that we need to avoid any ambiguity, especially in an article's first sentence. As an alternative to "communist state", how about "a state ruled by pro-Soviet German communists during the Cold War period"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That would create new ambiguity, as it wasn't a state whose rulers simply happened to support the Soviet Union, but a Soviet satellite state occupied by the Soviet Union and with rulers installed by the Soviet Union (i.e. a puppet government). The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic is described as "a Soviet satellite state of the Eastern Bloc" for example. Along those lines, we could have:

"The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a Soviet satellite state formed in the western part of the Soviet occupation zone of Germany in 1949. Describing itself as a socialist state and considered a communist state in the West, it was a dictatorship ruled by the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, the East German Communist Party, and is often regarded as a totalitarian state. It formed part of the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War and was a member of the Warsaw Pact.

Then three more paragraphs with more detail on various aspects.

Mocctur (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead for Nazi Germany says, "In the midst of the Great Depression, the Nazi government restored economic stability and ended mass unemployment.... Extensive public works were undertaken, including the construction of the Autobahns. The return to economic stability gave the regime enormous popularity.... The 1936 Summer Olympics showcased the Third Reich on the international stage." Even for the worst regime in history, the lead is more balanced than what you are proposing here. TFD (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't have any problem with including a similar mention of economic policies of the GDR in the lead section, that's not even an issue. I very much welcome a discussion of the GDR's economic policies and stagnating economy, which is also a key reason for the state's failure. The issue at hand is that the lead needs to mention that it was a Soviet satellite state and it needs to mention clearly its form of government. Btw., the GDR didn't enjoy "enormous popularity" or "economic stability". Mocctur (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mocctur, I'd agree that the page on the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic is a relevant comparison. I notice, though, that the Czechoslovak SR page does not include the word "totalitarian" in its intro, nor the word "dictatorship"... Another page worth looking at is People's Republic of Hungary... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Czchoslovakia didn't have a Stasi quite as repressive as East Germany. In any event, there is an enormous amount of sources describing the GDR as totalitarian, and Nazi Germany is described as totalitarian too (totalitarian doesn't mean "most evil"; in fact the GDR may have been more totalitarian at times with its Stasi). Also note that while the articles on the other Soviet satellite states are worth looking at, many of them are very lacking and tagged for various problems. The article on Nazi Germany on the other hand is a very thorough article with a carefully crafted lead section, and hence a very relevant comparison. Mocctur (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If the GDR was a satellite state, how could it also be ruled by the SED? Aren't the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact the same thing? Are there any communist countries that are not often regarded as totalitarian? TFD (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Now you are pushing original research; it's univerally agreed by reliable sources that East Germany was a Soviet satellite state; even the article on satellite state specifically mentions the GDR. A satellite state is a state ruled by a puppet government, in this case pro-Soviet communists installed as rulers by the Soviet Union. Satellite states trying to break ties with the Soviet Union were invaded. The Soviet Union had a military presence in East Germany as well. The regime known as the SED Dictatorship was roughly comparable to the Quisling regime of Norway. 2) No, the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact are not the same thing. The Warsaw Pact formed a part of the Eastern Bloc, the Eastern Bloc was bigger than just the Warsaw Pact. Mocctur (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The SED followed Kremlin orders, but the Russians did not operate the German government (compare in Poland where Stalin put a Russian general in charge of the Polish army). Eastern Bloc/Warsaw Pact are same countries, but "Warsaw Pact" means the military role opposed to NATO. China today is not totalitarian--business has a major role independent of the Party and there is no Stasi-like control of personal livesRjensen (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question about Mocctur's draft... According to the existing body text section "Zones of occupation" the term "Soviet occupation zone" comes from the Potsdam Agreement and refers to the 5 Länder which became the GDR... But Mocctur's draft says the GDR was formed in " the western part of the Soviet occupation zone of Germany". Is the term "Soviet occupation zone" being used in a different sense in the draft lede to what is used in the body text? Is this an appropriate thing to do? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kalidasa 777 makes a good point. The Eastern was from the start made part of Poland. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence referred to the areas occupied by the Soviet Union at the end of WWII; an occupying power cannot transfer land unilaterally under international law (it is explicitly forbidden), and hence this arrangement was formally designated a temporary arrangement at the time by the Soviet Union and was unrecognized by the Federal Republic of Germany for decades, only to be cemented later and internationally recognized in 1990. In 1949, in order to be precise, one should distinguish between the areas occupied by the Soviet Union. In order to avoid ambiguity, we could also use the wording "western part of the areas occupied by the Soviet Union at the end of WWII". Mocctur (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We should not use the word totalitarian in the lead; its an extremely vague term, secondly, the East German state has been referred to as an authoritarian state (or even more)... The term totalitarian is a biased term with negative connotations.. It would hurt the neutrality of the article.. If you want to include the authoritarian nature of the state, why don't write a sentence that it had forced labour, jailed people because of political opinions and etc (all that can be written in one, or two sentences).. But no, don't use the word totalitarian..

To say that East Germany is totalitarian, but China isn't is extremely biased... What does private ownership or private entrepreneurial activity have to do with totalitarianism?? Really, what you are saying is this, every ideology which opposes private ownership is by theory and in practice is going to become totalitarian... That's a strange way of putting it. China is just as bad as East Germany, last time i checked every private business has to establish a party committee (and in many cases, the secretary of the party committee has more power than the actual boss of the company... Secondly, the USSR still had a planned economy under Gorbachev, but the state wasn't totalitarian (nor authoritarian by any sense of the word) under his rule.... Totalitarian is a vague term, and just because the Nazi Germany article has it, it doesn't mean that this article should have.. Just because another article has a bad feature, or is un-neutral, doesn't give you the right to do the same with this article... --TIAYN (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine". Basically we should condemn human rights abuses in countries there we have no influence, but not in countries where we do. TFD (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The GDR was a socialist state with a centrally planned economy. It was ruled by its communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Several other parties existed, but they were not permitted to compete for votes against the Socialist Unity Party until 1990. Instead they took part in an SUP-dominated coalition, and voters were asked to approve a prearranged list of candidates from the coalition. (The coalition was called the National Front of Democratic Germany.)
First 2 sentences are okay. Then 3rd one is basically there were some other guys who didn't rly matter. And then another sentence is used to explain how exactly they didn't matter. Not most useful way to spend limited room in lede. Instead the fact that East-Germany was one of the most economically successful countries in eastern bloc, while still far behind West-Germany, would probably deserve mention.
The GDR was a consistent ally of the Soviet Union through the Cold War period, and became a founding member of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. Emigration to West Germany was a significant problem — as many of the emigrants were young well-educated people, it weakened the state economically. The GDR government tried to stop people leaving by fortifying its western borders and establishing the Berlin Wall.
Firstly, you can't really have GDR-Soviet relationship without mentioning satellite state. Also last sentence forgets to mention most important part about GDR's measures to stop emigration. You know, the fact that people were shot and in very significant numbers.--Staberinde (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also there is nothing really wrong with words like "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" if those are used by reliable sources. Alternative would be going straight to details about Stasi.--Staberinde (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with a lot of what you've said, Staberinde — certainly it is a good idea to say something in the lede about economic performance of the GDR. And to mention (as the current lede does) that border guards shot people.

Re the words "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" — yes, reliable sources use them, but they use them in a range of ways, as Mocctur has mentioned. I think there is a real risk of getting lost in issues like whether the GDR in the 1980s was a totalitarian state, or an authoritarian state, or "authoritarian with totalitarian features". Which is an historically and politically important debate, but I'd suggest it belongs more to the body text than the intro. As you've mentioned, room in lede is limited...

I actually think the word "dictatorship" might be better, with a brief explanation — it is already mentioned in the body text as a generally-agreed descriptor... I don't think the lede can go into great detail about either the Stasi or the National Front of Democratic Germany. But mentioning both may help clarify why the republic called itself "democratic", and why it is considered a dictatorship nonetheless... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just describe the GDR regime as repressive?? "Repressive" and "Oppressive" are good words to describe the regime.. We all agree that the GDR was repressing its own people, right? as mentioned before, authoritarian and totalitarian are extremely vague terms, but repression/oppression is not. --TIAYN (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another draft lede...

Another draft lede. This one says more about the economy than the last. It also uses the word "dictatorship"...

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state within the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War period. From 1949 to 1990 it governed the region of Germany (west of the Oder–Neisse line) occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War — the Soviet occupation zone of the Potsdam Agreement.

Despite its name, the GDR was a dictatorship for the 40 years from 1949 to 1989. The state was run by Soviet-backed communists, whose will was enforced by the Stasi, a security force comparable to the KGB. However, the régime made an effort to appear inclusive by bringing non-communist political groups into the ruling Socialist Unity Party and into its associated coalition structure, the National Front of Democratic Germany. The economy was centrally planned, and dominated by state-owned enterprises. A subsidy system was used to keep down the prices of a large range of basic goods and services.

The GDR began to function as a state on 7 October 1949. The previous year, Soviet occupation authorities had transferred administrative responsibility to the German Economic Commission, a precursor of the GDR. Soviet forces however remained in East Germany throughout the GDR period.

East Germany had to pay substantial war reparations to the USSR, yet it became the richest economy in the Eastern Bloc. Nonetheless it lagged behind the rising prosperity of West Germany. Emigration to the West was a significant problem — as many of the emigrants were young well-educated people, it further weakened the state economically. The government tried to stop people leaving by fortifying its western borders and in 1961 by establishing the Berlin Wall. Border guards were authorized to shoot people trying to leave. Over 100 people died as a result.

In 1989, a peaceful revolution ended the dictatorship, and the Berlin Wall was destroyed. The following year, free elections were held in the GDR, and international negotiations led to the signing of the Final Settlement treaty on the status and borders of Germany. The GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited on 3 October 1990.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

excellent work...I would tweak the last paragraph to " peaceful POPULAR revolution " Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. POV-driven editorialising. Not remotely acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is not being helpful. The passage reflects the best scholarship. Andy has never told us what reliable sources, if any, he relies upon for his alternative viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope - I don't need to cite sources to point out that Wikipedia isn't here to tell our readers how to think. "Despite its name..."? "...will was enforced..."? "...the régime made an effort to appear inclusive..."? "Nonetheless it lagged behind the rising prosperity of West Germany"? (a nice little bit of synthesis, if it isn't a complete non-sequitur.) POV-driven editorialising. If you want to discuss it at WP:NPOVN that's fine by me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Weber (⁵2011: 30, 31) supports all the statements criticized by AdG above, thus a SYNTH problem does not exist, and since Weber^(de) has a communist/socialist background and the cited work is a standard reference work from the Oldenbourg GG^(de) series, it is hard to see a NPOV concern here. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just call the regime repressive... If extreme neutrality is of extreme importance, just write that the GDR authorities oppressed what they considered as anti-socialist individuals, groups or other manifestations... Either use the word dictatorial, state it was repressive in some way or another, and if that doesn't work, write the truth, the GDR oppressed individuals or groups which the state and party considered anti-socialist, anti-communist... --TIAYN (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

yes Andy, you DO need to read the RS before you can be of help here. ::::Wikipedia is here to tell readers what the RS say--and an editor has to read those RS or he isn't much help. For example Andy believes it's "synthesis" to say that West germany was much more prosperous--he is unaware that all the RS say so. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A hell of a lot reliable sources refer to the GDR as a democratic republic too... Just read Cold War literature produced in the Eastern Bloc... Of course, this never seems to occur to anyone since those sources were written by communists (so we naturally assume them to be useless), so instead wer use neutral capitalist-liberal democratic sources to analyse and judge the GDR.... Which, by all means is OK with me, but then pressing for the inclusion of the term totalitarian in the lead is in practice un-neutral Rjensen.. Its ironic when you accuse others of breaching RS rules and neutrality, when you do the same. --TIAYN (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it is possible to cherry-pick sources for propaganda purposes, Rjensen. This is however irrelevant. This proposed lede is POV-driven editorialising, and if it is added to the article, I will revert it accordingly. And cut out the clueless insinuations , the pair of you. I am well aware of what went on in the DDR, and am no supporter of state oppression anywhere. I do however expect Wikipedia articles to be written according to neutral encyclopaedic principles, rather than cold-war rhetoric. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't really understand why you wrote "the pair of you", when I agree with you Andy... But OK :) --TIAYN (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I don't know where that came from. Trying to edit too many articles at once I think - I've struck that bit and clarified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite its name, the GDR was a dictatorship for the 40 years from 1949 to 1989. The state was run by Soviet-backed communists, whose will was enforced by the Stasi, a security force comparable to the KGB. However, the régime made an effort to appear inclusive by bringing non-communist political groups into the ruling Socialist Unity Party and into its associated coalition structure, the National Front of Democratic Germany. The economy was centrally planned, and dominated by state-owned enterprises. A subsidy system was used to keep down the prices of a large range of basic goods and services.
I also think "despite its name" is unneccessary. Also I dont see the need to bring in KGB to explain Stasi. Just say what Stasi did, that is repressed opposition to ruling government/regime. Also "appear inclusive" isn't necessarily needed. Basically what should be said that SED ran the show, and other parties were not allowed to act independently, something like that:
GDR was a dictatorship run by Soviet-backed Socialist Unity Party which led the National Front of Democratic Germany, with other parties not allowed to play any independent role. Opposition to government was repressed by the security service Stasi. The economy was centrally planned, and dominated by state-owned enterprises. A subsidy system was used to keep down the prices of a large range of basic goods and services.
Also those "border guards allowed" to shoot and "over 100 killed" sentences. Inner_German_border#Deaths_on_the_border has As of 2009, unofficial estimates are up to 1,100 people, though officially released figures give a count from 270 up to 421 deaths.[145] . I would just say "hundreds", and put those sentences together, so:
Hundreds of people trying to leave were killed by border guards.
--Staberinde (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another point, the Socialist Unity Party did not rule the GDR through the Stasi, and most of the time, it did not need to enforce its will through the Stasi.. The Stasi's main objective was to ensure socialist one-party rule, and it oppressed those who opposed it or those the Stasi believed opposed it... The Stasi was just one of many institutions the party controlled, and used to enforce its will.... It may have been the best known institutional enforcer for the SED, but it was not the only one... Another point, why is it so important to include Stasi in the lead, the mention of the KGB is not featured in the lead of the Soviet Union article, and the mention of the FBI/CIA is not mentioned in the lead of the United States article, the mention of mukhabarat is not mentioned in lead to the Syrian article, so why should this article be different?? Just mention that the GDR was ruled by a repressive regimes, which enforced repressive measures through its secret service, military and so on (there were others too)... --TIAYN (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess specific mention of Stasi in text isn't definitely necessary indeed, maybe replace Stasi part with something like that (wording may have room for improvement)?: "Extensive security apparatus was used for repressions by government to suppress any opposition to its rule."--Staberinde (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That wording I can support Staberinde. --TIAYN (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for reading my draft and saying what you think about it. I can't really accept Andy's charge of "POV-driven editorializing", because most if not all of the points mentioned are already right there in the body text of the article itself. To be more specific...

• The body text section "History" quotes the historian Jurgen Kocka as saying that the term "dictatorship" is "widely accepted". If there are indeed reliable sources that say otherwise, I would be very interested to see their arguments... TIAYN mentions communist literature from the Cold War period about the GDR. On this, yes, I'm inclined to agree that the article could say more about pro-GDR literature from the period, and what it said about concepts like people's democracy, and the leading role of the party, not to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat... but I'd question whether Cold War literature about the GDR (from whatever point of view) is in the same category as work by post-Cold War scholars (whatever their politics) with access to archives that are open now but were closed back then...

• In the body text section "GDR created 1949", it mentions that "everything was made to look democratic", and this appears to come (via modern historian Dirk Spilker) from the former GDR leader Walter Ulbricht.

• The body text section "Economy" mentions "an increasing differential with the prosperity in West Germany". If anyone really think this is wrong, by all means let's look at more sources and sort it out, because either way it is surely a pretty basic issue!

Having said all that, I accept there can be different views about the best way to introduce this article... If others prefer a wording with "security apparatus" instead of Stasi, I'm fine with that... As for the term "dictatorship", it may be widely used, but as Jurgen Kocka also says: "the meaning of the concept dictatorship varies". Maybe that is a reason not to use it in our lede.

Finally, regarding Staberinde's point about the number of people killed at the border... I took the figure of "over 100" from the existing lede. But based on the page that it links to, that figure actually refers to the Berlin Wall only, and does not include deaths on other parts of the GDR's western border. So yes, it is an understatement... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kalidasa 777. The lede should reference the Stasi--is there some other security apparatus anyone means? The Stasi was an unusually powerful group and deserves mention. As for "dictatorship," the issue that is debated is how many men really ran that dictatorship (a few? a few dozen? a few hundred?). (It was not a one-man show like Stalin or Mao or North Korea or Romania). Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The word dictatorship has a negative connotation, even among dictators - there is a reason why the majority of dictators don't call themselves dictators. Its a reason why they believe they are actually supported by the people until the very end, such was the case with Saddam Hussein (who claimed it was an international conspiracy against him and the Iraqi people)... Qaddafi, Stalin, Mao, and so on, all of them were dictators, but they never called themselves that.. They were democrats, they believed at least, who ruled for the people... No one wants to be called a dictator, no political system wants to be referred to as a dictatorship, and there is a reason for that, it has negative connotations.. Thats why I don't want it in the lead, the term "dictatorship" is probably one of the worst thing you can say about a system... For instance, China, North Korea, Laos, Syria, Sudan and so on, are all dictatorship, but they do not refer to themselves as that (and in some cases, they actually believe they are democratic, that they are serving the interest of the people)... --TIAYN (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

dictators say the strangest things--and not many people believe them. Wiki's job is to report what the RS have concluded--and that is it was indeed a dictatorship with very little tolerance for any sort of opposition.Rjensen (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it really depends on how you define dictatorship... None of the leaders in teh Soviet Union would call their rule as a dictatorship, because they believed they were fighting a just fight... The same with GDR, Honecker (and his wife) denied to the very end what they saw as the GDR democratic identity.. They believed, of course, that capitalism, our political system, was the dictatorship (or at least, the truly un-democratic system)... The term dictatorship is nothing more than a liberalist slogan.... Just write that the state was repressive, it had a secret service (or state Stasi specifically if you have to), it killed people who tried to escape, but the term dictatorship should go. --TIAYN (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx) or rather its self-acclaimed represenatives, i.e. the leaders of the communist parties (Lenin) was the central pillar of Marxism-Leninism (not to mention Stalinism). Dictatorship of the leading cadre of the communist parties (boiling down to the leading politbureau members) was understood as the perfection of democracy, as these officials defined their will as the will of the majority, i.e. the proletariat and the peasants. That was abundantly propagated state ideology, there should be lots of sources about that, e.g. this entry in a leading encyclopedia of that time. Being a dictatorship and a democracy at the same time was thus not seen as mutually exclusive by state ideologists, while the rest of the world did (and does) make a distinction there. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TIAYN, I don't think you're quite right in saying that none of Soviet leaders would call their rule a dictatorship, though I have no doubt they believed they were fighting a just fight. Lenin used terms like "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "revolutionary dictatorship" quite a lot, e.g. in a short book called The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. Also in a comment to Trotsky after they dissolved the Constituent Assembly, which Trotsky later published, Lenin contrasted "formal democracy" with "revolutionary dictatorship". And Mao wrote a statement with the title On the People's Democratic Dictatorship... These people thought that suppression of counter-revolutionaries was an absolutely necessary part of the revolutionary struggle. In the late seventies, there were actually divisions within the world communist movement when some west european communist parties stopped using the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". The Soviet leaders of the time thought the western CPs were abandoning an important part of Leninism... I'm not familiar enough with writings by the GDR leaders to quote an example where they used the word "dictatorship"... I'd actually be very surprised if they never used it, but who knows? Certainly a point worth checking... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ML was state ideology in the GDR too, including the Leninist understanding of dictatorship, see MDR materials as a random source for that and listen to Louis Fürnberg Die Partei hat immer recht ["The [communist] party is always right"] as an example for the respective propaganda. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what they mean by dictatorship... With the dictatorship of the proletariat, they refer to the monopolization of power by the working class (which they believe is okay, since the working class will become the biggest social class through industrial development - which has, of course, been proven wrong by modern development since the 1970s)e... When they refer to revolutionary dictatorship, they refer to the rule of a party which represents the proletariat, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat... The party is ruled through democratic centralism, which is in theory more democratic then centralist, but in practice far more centralist then democratic.... Dictatorship in Marxism-Leninism sources those not refer to anti-democratic rule as it would in liberalist terminology.. --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

German and Soviet Communists believed in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" not because it was so numerous, but because it represented the true producers of wealth of the economy. (As for farmers, the land was nationalized and they were put on collective farms, thereby turning them into a proletariat as well.) As one historian has explained, "Espousing the motto 'it must look democratic but we must control everything', he [Ulbricht] set about establishing an SED dictatorship."Peter Grieder (2000). The East German Leadership, 1946-73: Conflict and Crisis. Manchester UP. p. 14. Rjensen (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe replace "dictatorship" with something like "repressive authoritarian state"?--Staberinde (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarian Communazi state? 74.88.115.128 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be agreeable with replacing "dictatorship" with something else... The only problem I see with "authoritarian" is that some scholars (not to mention politicians) make a fairly strong distinction between "authoritarian" states and "totalitarian" ones... I think perhaps any attempted one-word description is going to be problematic here... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For want of a better word, perhaps oligarchy sums up what the DDR government was. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"oligarchy" does not suggest the elaborate structure of the SED, from local cells up to the Politburo and the Stasi. It merely suggests a bunch of powerful men ran things-- as happens in many societies across the centuries. Rjensen (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You could write that the party monopolized all political and economic power in the country... --TIAYN (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the thinking behind the "oligarchy" suggestion, Kudpung. Conveys idea that rule was by a small group of leaders, which is true — absence of internal democracy in the SED was an issue raised by those who reorganized it as the PDS... Stilll perhaps the term "oligarchy" is a little original for WP? I'm really not sure we can use it in the article without an RS for applying this term to the GDR. And don't think it can go in the lede unless/until it is in general use by historians. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the suggestion of oligarchy because I don't believe words like dictatorship, repressive, authoritarian, totalitarian, etc., however possibly apt, to be sufficiently academic and/or neutral for encyclopaedic work (they all sound a bit Orwellian to me). That said however, apart from offering suggestions, I don't want to be involved in your decision-making process because having lived on the inner-German border for many years while people were being killed trying to escape, I prefer to remain neutral and stick to admin tasks where required here. I've been asked to review the page protection I made but this is or has been a very contentious article and I don't think I'm quite ready to lift the PP just yet, but I have no objections to another admin being asked as long as they are made aware of the article's history and have a chance to review it thoroughly because any changes made could have an impact on other German related articles; perhaps an admin who is noted for solid FA review work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's been a contentious article. The question is, how to move forward? I agree that we need to be neutral. You may be right about the words dictatorship, repressive, authoritarian, and totalitarian. Even though I suggested the word "dictatorship", I can see there are arguments against it, and certainly there is no consensus for including it in the lede. However, surely there are things we can do to improve the page, even without having a consensus one-word description of the East German state.

Have you looked at the draft in the thread immediately below this thread? It doesn't use any of the words you've mentioned (though does mention that opposition was repressed by Stasi). The draft has been there for almost a full day now, and so far 4 people think it looks good (counting the person who suggested it), while no-one has offered major criticism. Isn't that pretty good going, for a proposed new lede in such a contentious article? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the thread below. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

An argument for preferring not to use words like "totalitarian" or "dictatorship" in the lede, is that they're arguably in the category of "value-laden labels" (see WP:LABEL) like "terrorist" and "cult", which the WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch suggests should generally be avoided. The guideline does however say that it's ok to use value-laden labels if they are "widely used by be reliable sources to describe the subject", but even then "use in-text attribution".

The guideline is common sense really — words that are value-laden, or can be read as value-laden, are likely to offend people looking in WP for information. Even if RSs use them widely, we need to mention the sources, and not just in a footnote, but in the same section of text where the label appears.

Which means that the way the word "dictatorship" is used in the body text is fine (because there is an in-text attribution to Jurgen Kocka), but I now think it was not good style to use it the way I did in the draft lede at the top of this thread. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Its sort of 2-way street, while we maybe shouldn't use something like "totalitarian" which is probably somewhat contentious, if we push it too far other side we will just end up with some politically correct but meaningless euphenism, effectively whitewashing whole thing. Its not really possible to describe de facto single-party police state in a way that doesn't sound negative at all, simply because single-party police states just are generally seen negatively by people.--Staberinde (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

there's that fallacy again: we do NOT have to be neutral about the GDR; we only have to be neutral regarding the RS. We can give full play to those scholars who say it was a nice place (if you can find them). Rjensen (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding value-laden labels is not the same as saying that we "have to be neutral about the GDR". For instance, "satellite state" is (arguably) a value-laden label. But the presence of Soviet troops in East Germany, and their role in putting down the uprising of 1953, are historical facts. The more historical facts readers know, the more they will be able to decide for themselves whether the GDR was a "nice place" or not. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"satellite state" is an analytic category used by political scientists. It is used to describe the power relationship between two states where one controls the policies of the other. It is not "value laden" -- value laden words = nice/horrible/nasty/wonderful/etc ....Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Value-laden label" refers to a more subtle issue than whether to use words like "nice", "nasty". Examples mentioned at WP:LABEL are "cult", "racist", "myth"... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything value laden about "satellite state", especially in context of East Germany. Its quite mild term compared to lets say "puppet state" or "client state" (have seen those in wikipedia ledes). Also it is very widely used description about those eastern bloc countries.--Staberinde (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't let's start the 'satellite state' discussion over again - it went on for years and the last weary episode was only archived a few months ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A draft lede, without the word "dictatorship"

Here is another one... without the word "dictatorship", but mentions uprising of 1953 and role of Soviet forces in repressing it. This is already mentioned in the body text, and seems like a historic fact notable enough for the lede. A few other tweaks, including mention of West Berlin in 3rd sentence.

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state within the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War period. From 1949 to 1990 it governed a region of Germany which was occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War — the Soviet Occupation Zone of the Potsdam Agreement, bounded on the east by the Oder-Neisse line. The Soviet zone surrounded West Berlin, but did not include it; as a result, West Berlin remained outside the control of the GDR.

Soviet occupation authorities began transferring administrative responsibility to German communist leaders in 1948, and the GDR began to function as a state on 7 October 1949. Soviet forces however remained in East Germany throughout the Cold War, and in 1953 they helped the GDR police to suppress a popular uprising. Until 1989, political power in the GDR was monopolized by the Soviet-backed communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Other parties could only function within the SUP-dominated National Front of Democratic Germany. The Stasi security force was used to repress dissent.

The economy was centrally planned, and predominantly state owned. A subsidy system was used to keep down the prices of a large range of basic goods and services. Although the GDR had to pay substantial war reparations to the USSR, it became the richest economy in the Eastern Bloc. Nonetheless it did not match the economic growth of West Germany. Emigration to the West was a significant problem — as many of the emigrants were young well-educated people, it further weakened the state economically. The government tried to stop people leaving by fortifying its western borders and in 1961 by establishing the Berlin Wall. Several hundred people were shot by border guards.

In 1989, a peaceful revolution in the GDR led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall and emergence of a government committed to democratization. The following year, free elections were held, and international negotiations led to the signing of the Final Settlement treaty on the status and borders of Germany. The GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited on 3 October 1990.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it. --TIAYN (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, although I would replace "shot" with "killed" in 3rd paragraph.--Staberinde (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad people think it looks good overall. Agree that the word "shot" is ambiguous. Though "killed" is ambiguous in another way, it could be read as meaning that the border guards did something like arrested and then hanged people. Maybe "fatally shot"?

As we seem to be moving towards a consensus here, I've sent a message to the administrator who put on full protection, suggesting that it is time to remove the full protection, so we can make edits and continue to tweak...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Neutrality" means neutral regarding the majority and minority scholarly views. it does NOT mean neutral regarding the behavior of East Germany. Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that a comment about what's been said in this thread, or in the one above it? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

it's just a reminder that there is no call to be neutral about the GDR's policies and behavior. Our job is to reflect the current scholarship, of which there is a great deal. (And very few of the RS are favorable to the GDR/SED/Stasi -- which developed techniques of repression that were highly sophisticated as compared to the crudeness of Stalin.) Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Dictatorship" is a pejorative phrase not much used in post-cold war history and political science. It implies an ahistoric level of total control of all facets of society. I note that this is equally imprecise, archaic, and colored whether one characterizes the DDR as a "Communist dictatorship" or a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" — cuts both ways. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Civilization, p. 336, "Napoleon...introduced the idea of the satellite state. Disaffected generals and aristocrats in the territories that France invaded were placed in government in return for pledging loyalty to the emperor and supplying troops, money and matérial to the Grand Armée."[2] Otherwise no changes were made in the laws or economic system in these states. That does not describe the relationship between the GDR and the Soviet Union and using the term "satellite state", popular during the Cold War, merely adds confusion, by trying to tie the Soviet Union with nazism. If we want to add comparisons with nazism, it is better to do so directly rather than through innuendo. A dictatorship is rule by a single person who suspends the constitution during an emergency, which describes Hitler's rule, but not the SED. Certainly we may explain why the GDR could be described as a dictatorship, but we should avoid labelling that does not provide enlightenment. TFD (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

satellite = "Disaffected generals and aristocrats in the territories that France invaded were placed in government in return for pledging loyalty to the emperor"--yes that exactly describes East Germany. All the top SED people spent the war & prewar in Moscow where Stalin vetted them and then put them in power in 1956+. "Dictatorship" sometimes is one person and just as often it's a small group (like the Politburo or Central Committee). Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make it a puppet state, where greater control is be exercised? TFD (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Client state" would probably also suit East-Germany.--Staberinde (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And has the advantage that it isn't a term specific to the Cold War — it is more likely to be understood by readers born since the Cold War finished... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't let's start the 'satellite state' discussion over again - it went on for years and the last weary episode was only archived a few months ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we discuss something that was discussed before, if it hasn't been resolved yet? Anyway, Staberinde has suggested a different expression: "client state". I like this suggestion, because "client state"

• is a concise way of characterizing the GDR in relation to the Soviet,
• is widely used by current scholarship in relation to the GDR,
• is also used in lots of other contexts (not only or predominantly in context of Europe and Cold War), so it is more likely to be understood by readers of different ages and countries.

So why shouldn't "client state" be included in the intro? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We should be consistent. Israel, most Latin American states, South Vietnam, South Korea, Canada, Western European countries and dozens of other countries have been described as U.S. client states, but we do not put it into the infoboxes of those countries. The term was never used to describe the GDR during the Cold War. TFD (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, if its used during cold war then its unsuitable, if its not used during cold war its unsuitable etc. Anyway, to stop wasting time, I suggest taking that last draft of Kalidasa 777, replace "shot" with "killed" or something else that makes it clear that we are counting deaths there, and consider this prolonged argument done and finished.--Staberinde (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you guys at least review the talk page history regarding what kind of state the DDR was; just because older threads have been archived does not mean they are any less relevant and anything discussed there should be taken into account instead of starting the whole thing over again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for this lede?

Same as last, except uses the word "killed" instead of "shot" in 3rd paragraph, as suggested by Staberinde.

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state within the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War period. From 1949 to 1990 it governed a region of Germany which was occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War — the Soviet Occupation Zone of the Potsdam Agreement, bounded on the east by the Oder-Neisse line. The Soviet zone surrounded West Berlin, but did not include it; as a result, West Berlin remained outside the control of the GDR.

Soviet occupation authorities began transferring administrative responsibility to German communist leaders in 1948, and the GDR began to function as a state on 7 October 1949. Soviet forces however remained in East Germany throughout the Cold War, and in 1953 they helped the GDR police to suppress a popular uprising. Until 1989, political power in the GDR was monopolized by the Soviet-backed communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED). Other parties could only function within the SUP-dominated SED-dominated National Front of Democratic Germany. The Stasi security force was used to repress dissent.

The economy was centrally planned, and predominantly state owned. A subsidy system was used to keep down the prices of a large range of basic goods and services. Although the GDR had to pay substantial war reparations to the USSR, it became the richest economy in the Eastern Bloc. Nonetheless it did not match the economic growth of West Germany. Emigration to the West was a significant problem — as many of the emigrants were young well-educated people, it further weakened the state economically. The government tried to stop people leaving by fortifying its western borders and in 1961 by establishing the Berlin Wall. Several hundred people were killed by border guards.

In 1989, a peaceful revolution in the GDR led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall and emergence of a government committed to democratization. The following year, free elections were held, and international negotiations led to the signing of the Final Settlement treaty on the status and borders of Germany. The GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited on 3 October 1990.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is good enough. Lets all agree or we will be arguing here also in February :) --Staberinde (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support with the exception that, as far as I know, the abbreviation SUP for Socialist Unity Party is barely (if ever) used. Even English-language sources use the German abbreviation SED. Therefore I propose to add (SED) after the first full mention of the Socialist Unity Party and then use the abbreviation SED for further mentions. --RJFF (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support with SED Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good point about SED, RJFF. Have just amended the text above, using strike-thru...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Taking into account that TIAYN gave approval to an almost identical draft in the thread immediately above this one, that makes five of us — all active participants in the recent discussions on this talk page — who think it's a good idea, versus zero who disagree. I'm making it an "edit protected" request Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Requesting that the page lede section be edited to read as follows:

The German Democratic Republic (GDR; German: Deutsche Demokratische Republik [ˈdɔʏtʃə demoˈkʀaːtɪʃə ʀepuˈbliːk] or DDR), informally known in English as East Germany, was a state within the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War period. From 1949 to 1990 it governed a region of Germany which was occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War — the Soviet Occupation Zone of the Potsdam Agreement, bounded on the east by the Oder-Neisse line. The Soviet zone surrounded West Berlin, but did not include it; as a result, West Berlin remained outside the control of the GDR.

Soviet occupation authorities began transferring administrative responsibility to German communist leaders in 1948, and the GDR began to function as a state on 7 October 1949. Soviet forces however remained in East Germany throughout the Cold War, and in 1953 they helped the GDR police to suppress a popular uprising. Until 1989, political power in the GDR was monopolized by the Soviet-backed communist party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED). Other parties could only function within the SED-dominated National Front of Democratic Germany. The Stasi security force was used to repress dissent.

The economy was centrally planned, and predominantly state owned. A subsidy system was used to keep down the prices of a large range of basic goods and services. Although the GDR had to pay substantial war reparations to the USSR, it became the richest economy in the Eastern Bloc. Nonetheless it did not match the economic growth of West Germany. Emigration to the West was a significant problem — as many of the emigrants were young well-educated people, it further weakened the state economically. The government tried to stop people leaving by fortifying its western borders and in 1961 by establishing the Berlin Wall. Several hundred people were killed by border guards.

In 1989, a peaceful revolution in the GDR led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall and emergence of a government committed to democratization. The following year, free elections were held, and international negotiations led to the signing of the Final Settlement treaty on the status and borders of Germany. The GDR was dissolved and Germany was reunited on 3 October 1990.

Explanation: New lede section, presenting the key political and economic information about GDR, using consensus language. See the thread immediately above for evidence of consensus. See earlier threads on this talk page for how we got to this point... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Guys, legally the GDR wasn't dissolved. Instead the five 'Länder' of the GDR joined 'Germany' indvidually under article 23 of the 'Grundgesetz'. I don't know whether you want to be so specific? Scooter de (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When the five Länder joined the Federal Republic of Germany, the GDR stopped existing as a state. How is that different from being dissolved? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect declined

With all due respect to the current unarchived discussions, two further admins have concurred that the full protection that I placed on 18 December should not yet be lifted. This is in order to prevent any resumed edit warring. Admins will be quite happy and reasonably quick to consider and implement any reasonable edit requests that are the result of a consensus on the talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK... The "edit request" process is an extra complication, and means a little extra work for administrators, but if protection is still considered necessary, we can work with that... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the environment

I can't really pretend to be informed here, this is just something I noticed. I recently visited the DDR Museum in Berlin and it had a whole section dedicated to envirommentalism in the DDR. Namely that, on paper, the DDR was the most 'environmentally-friend' state when it adopted its constitution. Nevertheless the environment was apparently devastated by irresponsible mining for Brown Coal and this was a 'hushed' issue that wasn't permitted to be discussed. Is there anyone more knowledgeable than myself who might be able to get this into the article with appropriate citations and whatnot? Henners91 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ostalgie and Kupferberg

I propose to move the paragraph containing Kupferbergs views on the problems of unification into a different or even it's own section, since it has nothing to do with Ostalgie, which is solely about East Germans views on "the good ol' days" (e.g. what they valued and what they've lost). Ostalgie is not about competing political views, especially not about how the two German States dealt with their Nazi past, which the paragraph displays quite biased towards the west. It states as facts that West Germany overcame its past gloriously while East Germany ignored it and sank into its own illusions of righteousness. So Kupferberg dismisses any eastern argument regarding the connection of the Nazi regime and the West German economy as myths. Which is totally uncalled for: just to name a few "IG Farben"- which is today "BASF", "Bayer", "Hoechst" and "Agfa"; "Krupp" (one of the largest Auschwitz profiteers); "Deutsche Bank" and of course Hitlers pet project "VW". Several of the companies directors convicted of war crimes after WWII were not only quickly released but also awarded the Federal Cross of Merit by the West German Government. Though some of the companies were split by the Allies, they quickly merged back into one and were then and are now the mainstay of the (West-)German economy. Now I'm not saying, this has to be in the article about the GDR. But the way it is right now, this part is not even close to neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.55.248 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

let's keep the Kupferberg, material--based on his important scholarly book The Rise and Fall of the German Democratic Republic (2002), which has been well received by scholars. It helps explain the chasm between East and West that remains to this day in Germany. Anonymous's personal opinions on big businessmen in West Germany is pretty irrelevant to the history of East Germany. Rjensen (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI: infobox content

Hi. I'm just letting you all know that I have temporarily reverted the edit that was made here. This is because as far as I can see, there has been no recent discussion for such a change since Talk:East Germany/Archive 5#East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, saying it is ''not is a revisionist interpretation of history not backed up by facts, which appeared to be left unresolved. Please note that I have absolutely no personal opinion in this content issue, but I think the best solution would be for the editors to start a new discussion aimed at finally reaching a consensus. If indeed a consensus has been reached somewhere and I missed it, feel free to restore the edit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that this supposed 'satellite state' status was only ever opinion, and never had any basis in law, nor in terms of any diplomatic recognition, it has no business being asserted as fact in the infobox. I'm sure that it will continue to be though, given the obsession some contributors have with ensuring that Wikipedia articles reflect obsolete cold-war dogma and crude propaganda, rather than actually reflecting contemporary scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, it's always 'opinion' from both sides until a consensus can be reached by drawing on and citing reliable sources that reflect contemporary scholarship, which of course is the only way Wikipedia can ascribe to accuracy. In my honest opinion, the previous discussion was a bitter fiasco; if a new discussion were to be started and conducted with less vitriol and polemic, there would be an outcome that everyone would be obliged to accept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. We shouldn't be trying to reach a consensus as to which opinion we put in infoboxes at all. They should be reserved for sourced non-controversial factual material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarian rule (revisited)

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary.

Isn't this an accurate description of the DDR? If there are some subtleties that make this inaccurate, perhaps they could be explained in the article.

I appreciate that the use of this term has been discussed before, but to completely ignore the term in the context of the DDR seems odd. 185.14.167.6 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The totalitarianism article on the German wiki says it is controversial whether the term is applicable to the DDR:

Umstritten ist in der Forschung, ob der Begriff etwa auf die DDR angewendet werden kann. Eckhard Jesse (1994) wandte das Konzept von Juan José Linz, der anhand verschiedener Merkmale totalitäre Diktaturen von autoritären unterscheidet, auf die DDR an. Er kam zu dem Schluss, dass die DDR unter Walter Ulbricht als totalitär bezeichnet werden kann. Unter Erich Honecker habe die DDR aufgrund der abnehmenden Ideologisierung selbst innerhalb der SED sowie der abnehmenden Mobilisierung der Bevölkerung diesen Charakter zunehmend verloren und sich zu einem autoritären System entwickelt.

185.14.167.6 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. All the scholars agree it was totalitarian into the late 1980s, as shown by power of STASI. But in late 1980s its control weakened -- as evidenced by the massive demonstrations it did not control. It TRIED to be totalitarian in the last days but had lost its authority and tried to save itself by calling on Russian troops (1989) and Gorbachev said NO. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

" All the scholars agree it was totalitarian into the late 1980s, as shown by power of STASI"? That seems a rather sweeping assertion to make, and appears not to be borne out - see the section in the German Wikipedia article on the DDR [3] entitled 'Historisch-politologische Einordnung' for several cited examples to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

that passage in the German Wikipedia article is based on a 1968 book by Ludz (he died in 1979)-- long before the secret archives became available in 1990s. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The section also cites Mary Fulbrook, writing in 2008, amongst others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

“All the scholars agree it was totalitarian into the late 1980s” Hannah Arendt did not agree. Furthermore “totalitarism” is a disputed concept in the political sciences. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of how analysis has changed at Paul Cooke (2005). Representing East Germany Since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia. Berg. p. 42.. At first scholars emphasized "totalitarian" controls over every aspect of life. Then in the 1980s, led by Marxists like Mary Fulbrook, there was an argument that there were some niches where people were slightly freer (inside the family, inside churches). However, after 1990 the pendulum swung back again and "the totalitarian model once again came to the fore." That is where we are now. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

"Marxists like Mary Fulbrook"? Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And incidentally, I fail to see how Cooke writing in 2005 could have made any assertions regarding analysis published in 2008... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Fulbrook identifies herself with Marxism [Vision and Method in Historical Sociology p 170, 203] and her position on East Germany has been pretty much the same in recent years. the point is that the general consensus among most scholars (with Fulbrook in the minority) has been on the "totalitarian" side since 1990 Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If Andy's concerns have been addressed, perhaps we could add to something to this effect to the article? 185.14.167.6 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As yet, Rjensen has provided no source for the assertion that "the general consensus among most scholars (with Fulbrook in the minority) has been on the 'totalitarian' side since 1990". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is more wrong to not mention totalitarianism at all, than to mention it. If there is no scholarly consensus (or at least no reliable sources that say so), why not follow the approach used on the German wiki by mentioning the two perspectives? 185.14.167.6 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I suggested before that the article could be much improved by replacing it entirely by a translation of the German Wiki article, and on that basis, I have to agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, do you think East Germany was never a totalitarian regime or do you object to the lack of sources? 185.14.167.6 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Your previous comment answers this question. 185.14.167.6 (talk)