Talk:German Empire/Archive 1

message: I think the article contains an error in saying that the Constitution required the Chancellor also to be Prime Minister of Prussia. This was not a constitutional requirement and there was a brief period when Bismarck gave up the Prussia job while remaining Chancellor.
In practice, he found this didn't work well so he took the job again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.52.174 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POSSIBLE ERROR

message: the map is so wrong where the hell are the colonies  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.59.176 (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally wrong!!!

message: The use of the word "conservative" in this article confused me, especially in the intro and the first section.  There are at least half a dozen different meanings to the word...could it be disambiguated?  Sometimes "conservative" means "political right", sometimes "political left", depending on the country, and that can be either social or fiscal.  Sometimes it just means "frugal". -- Beland 05:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's especially confusing, and arguably inaccurate, since Bismarck established in Germany the world's first social-welfare state.--Solicitr (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: "conservative" 

message: : The German Monarchy lasted from 1871 to 1918.  The head of the german monarchy was called a Kaiser.  After World War I there were attempts to transform the German Monarchy into a constitutional monarchy thus weakning the Kaisers powers.  After the German Monarchy was abolished Wilhelm II went into exile,later he hoped that the Nazi's would revive the Monarchy but they didn't.  Today there is not a big demand to the return of a German Monarchy.
~ Booyabazooka 18:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate info copied from [[German monarchy]] 

message: I understood that there was another version of the Imperial flag. See here.
That site says it's the war flag of the Empire. Does anyone know? Should this flag be included? Avalon 06:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's most often known as the naval ensign.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.182 (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of the German Empire

message: I wonder why nothing about the first Empire is told, taking into accountance that it is said, that the Kaiserreich is the second one. I believe the "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation" (Sacred Roman Empire of German Nation) should be mentioned in the text, although it was never more than a symbol and the emperor never achieved to have real power over the feudal nobility. Nevertheless, it is important to understand why a German Empire was so idealized, since it was something that many people wanted to feel as "important" as British landsmen but that German governments never wanted. It would have meant to lose power within a bigger state. For example, the first part of the German hymn (now forbidden) tells how important a unified and big Germany is and was written in a time when such Germany did not exist. The borders mentioned are the borders of the First Empire, idealized for showing the people that they belonged together and that German States should not be in war all the time. The Second Empire was of another nature, since most of Prussia (the most powerful state of the Empire) was not a part of the First one and since the capital (Parliament) of the First one (and German Federation) was more central, lying in Frankfurt a.M.
Nbez 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both wrong... the national anthem of Germany consists of only 1 verse since 1990. Before that, only the third verse was sung but none of them was ever forbidden.--MacX85 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Empire 

message: I cannot do it but IMHO this article needs a (linked) list of the various constituent states.
Avalon 20:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Decided to have a go myself. Avalon 22:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituent Parts

message: If someone sould find a world map with Germany's posessions in Africa and Asia as well as in Europe that would be great.
Cameron Nedland 02:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Map 

message: *First of all Poles didn't desire or "didn't mind to" to become Prussians.
*Secondly Poles didn't want to "establish" their own state. They wanted to re-establish their own state that was taken in part by Prussia, and territories where they lived -Grand Duchy of Posen, Gdańsk area weren't Prussian lands that were invaded by Poles but former territories of Polish state. Going even further Poles didn't even want to re-establish their state at the time because the main population and lands were in Congress Poland, but demanded restoration of autonomy to Grand Duchy of Poznań which was a guarantee of Prussia(that was violated of course).
*Thirdly the reason Poles were a problem for Germans was the desire to have an all German state and persecution of Poles and final abolishing of Grand Duchy of Posen. Writing that German couldn't count on loyalty of Poles is simply POV. Why should it count on loyalty of people who were persecuted, discriminated and their land taken by foreign country. This is as writing that Nazis couldn't count on loyalty of Poles in 1939.
--Molobo 12:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you so sure? "As far as Prussia was concerned, there were no special difficulties of integration with the Polish population. The old Prussia was no German nation-state and a Polish nationalism didn't exist at the beginning, either. Only parts of the aristocracy sought a restoration of the Polish state", reads a history book of mine. Sciurinæ 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So why should that one statement contradict the other? Did the French in the French revolution try to resist becoming Frenchman or could there have been different reasons? At least KMLA's website doesn't seem to think that the two statements are mutually exclusive or at least it indicates that there is some truth in the assertion that Poles on the whole didn't mind to become, to put it in your words, Prussianised.  Sciurinæ 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: True, for example the sentence "The German government could not count on the Polish-speaking citizens' loyalty anymore, many Poles defied assimilation." seems apologetic to me. The other version seems to me like an indictment. Sciurinæ 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What to do, then? john k 16:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you explain the point of your referencing crusade? Do you accuse one of the parties of original research or what? Even a child knows that once can back up any piece of bullshit with "references", e.g., from Polish media as Molobo or from textbooks for adolescents as you do. So, what's the point? Also, please take a note that shameless campainging for more revert warriors to spread propaganda is not likely to earn you additional points. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the decision of the Frankfurt Parliament was, in the end, against the Poles.   The current version doesn't read that Poles demanded a state when they took to the streets at the beginning of the revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong but just like the parliament consisted of academics rather than representatives of the general public, the Polish academics or clergymen or whoever might have demanded their own state, while the Polish general public on the whole had no such demands. I'd almost forgotten the previous discussion with Molobo on talkGermanisation about the topic, at the time when Molobo started his constant portrayals of me as Holocaust denier. Back then I translated more parts of the history book. Here is the post. Sciurinæ 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: What was the word used in German to name a "constituent state" the current word is Länder. Was it Länder under the German Empire? --PBS 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: de:Deutsches Kaiserreich uses "Bundesstaat" as a general term and then specifies the type of principality each state was. Olessi 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituent states of the empire

message: Ok, reasons for the revert: The article in the last version is not politicaly neutral. The German empirie was not more or less militaristic the other european countrys (for example Great Britain) in the age of imperialsim. Semi-democratic half feudal structures were typical for the most states of europe during that time. Prussia was in differnce to other european countrys very tolerant towards ethnical and rligious minoritys (very different to the third Reich). For example the school service was also held in miniority languages (french, polish, danish). Many persons in high positions in business and politics were jewish germans. There were some problems whith polnish nationalistic extremism in the province of Posen. But this was the problem with a small radical group of seperatits which tried to split of these province from Germany. Every state has the rihgt to defend its territorial integrity, and thats what the german reich did. Moderate polnish political parties were voted into the german Reichstag (parlament) during that time. The minority question was handeled peaceful. The province of posen was the only province with a non german mayority (in 1910: 55 % poles 45 % germans) in all other provimces was a clear german mayority (westprusia 70 %, silesia 82 %, elsass -lorraine 96 %,). the miniority question was generally not a big issue. This period of german history was a period of enormous economical growth and social reforms.--Golumbuss 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Golumbuss, thanks for writing this. It explains your point of view well, but does not explain your edits. Shall we do it one at a time ? E.g. can you explain why have you removed the "Polish" from "former Polish lands in the east" ? It is important to mention that these land were formerly Polish, as it explains why they were Catholic. What is your problem with this ? --Lysytalk 15:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether Kulturkampf was directed against Polish population or not is a matter of POV. German histriography predominantly believes it was not, while Polish claims it was. I'm not trying to say who was right, but where there are different points of view, both should be presented. Nevertheless, it is a fact that these were the previously Polish lands in the east, so why do you insist on removing/hiding this information ? --Lysytalk 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not true. My grandparents were from Bromberg (now Bydgoszcz), and they had to speak German until the end of WW2. They and the other Poles there felt Polish but would speak Polish at home only and use German outside because of the discrimination. Of course in schools and even in kindergarten they could use only German. Your theories about self-determinatin are nice but the reality looked different there. Then, then Bromberg came to Poland after WW1, they were considered kind of German by the other Poles from the east. --Lysytalk 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant during the Kaiserreich exactly, not the Nazi time (they moved to Warsaw after WW1). As for Masuria, as far s I know the Masurs would strongly support Germany in the beginning of 20th century, and Nazi party was very popular there during 1930s, probably more supported than in any other part of Germany. It would be interesting to have more information on mistreatment of Germans by Pilsudski, that you mentioned. --Lysytalk 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have also removed the explanation of why Catholics were perceived by Bismarck as a threat to unification. Why were they a threat (and why have you removed the explanation ?) --Lysytalk 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that Kulturkampf was aimed at Poles is ridiculous, that isolated view does not deserve to be mentioned in more that half a sentence in English Wikipedia, if at all. A few over-eager Poles and their edit-warfare had prevented not only this article from been written properly. Prussia had to fight many wars against Catholic states during its history, and as late as 1866, a war was fought against Austria, Bavaria etc. In 1870, France hoped that the catholic states would fight again against Prussia. In 1871, the Empire was politically united as a federation of kingdoms etc., it but it was not yet united internally, which Bismarck wanted to do in the same style as externally, with Prussia as undisputed leader. As a response, Bavaria actively promoted its identity, and still remains "different" nowadays as a "free state". --Matthead 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rev talk

message: I agree with a point raised earlier in this discussion, that a nation-info sidebar should be added. There is one for austria-hungary, one for the russian empire, even one for nazi germany, as well as one for every current nation. I think one should be added to this article.
-Alex, 74.133.188.197 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sidebar for German hisotry needs to be moved for the article's layout to be smoother, but I don't know how to move the template. Where it is right now is indented too far to the left and interferes with text/image spacing. Could someone please fix (or let me know how and I will). Thanks! - IstvanWolf 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar 

message: Hey, I've never seen this term explicitly used (or even suggested), but it strikes me that this period was probably Germany's golden age. I mean, think about it: it was probably the strongest state in the world on land (and was challenging the UK at sea), it had decisive political influence and ambitions, its economy propelled most of Europe, it was mostly unified and at peace (except for the whole Kulturkampf thing, maybe), scientists like Planck, Otto, and Einstein were thriving and making Germany an intellectual centre, and while the Kaiser and the elite kept Germany firmly rooted in its past, it was joining the modern age with its strong industry, liberal political groups, and so on. I know the Nazi Empire was stronger and the 1700s more productive on an artistic/cultural level, but doesn't the German Empire seem like the closest thing Germany had to a Golden Age?
I'm bringing this up because it might be worth mentioning in the article. Has anyone seen this in a book? Brutannica 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany's golden age?

message: I just added population and area data from the German site. Next, I was thinking of making a navbox for all the states, similar to the Weimar Republic one - I'll put it together when i get time (a day or so). —-  52 Pickup 17:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Template:States of the German Empire — 52 Pickup 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Navbox

message: After putting up the nation infobox a few days ago, I have developed a template to replace it: :Template:Infobox Historical State. It is based on :Template:Infobox Country but has been modified for use with now-extinct states. At the moment I am also working on a similar template for extinct provinces.
Feedback would be greatly appreciated. — 52 Pickup 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Great work. —Nightstallion (?) 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox 

message: I'm not much of a history buff, but the link titled "Treaty of Versailles" in one of the articles takes you to the treaty that ended the first world war. The article, however, says the "Treaty of Versailles in 1871." Are there 2 Treaties of Versailles? And did the wrong one get linked to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.76.252 (talk) 2006-11-26T04:00:30
:Good catch! Yes, it was a link to the wrong treaty. I have added a new stub article on the correct treaty, altered the link to point to it, added some disambiguation notes and altered the disambiguation article (Treaty of Versailles (disambiguation) accordingly.--Boson 11:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Versailles link 

message: I see that the article contains a mixture of spelling variants (British mixed with US) and sometimes they get changed. Can we agree on one version? 
It is my impression (but only that) that more words are and were spelled with "-ise", which would favour standardizing on "-ise".
The article is about a European subject, which would favour the European spelling. The most common European (i.e. British) spelling is probably "-ise".
Personally, while otherwise using British spelling throughout, I would prefer to use "-ize" because this is the standard US spelling and is also recommended by significant British publishers, notably the British Oxford University Press (including the Oxford English Dictionary), but this applies to all Wikipedia articles, and I accept that opinions differ on what British spelling to use.
As I see it, leaving a mixture is unacceptable; so should we standardize on "-ize" or "-ise"?--Boson 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favour of -ise and other British English spellings. Charles 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling -ise / -ize 

message: Looking at the fact, that the period of time the first paragraph talks about is approximately 24 years long, longer than the time Bismarck was in charge, I doubt whether it is said enough about this period. My English is relatively bad, so I won’t do it myself. But here are some important issues:
:The militarism the article talks about as implemented by the emperor was a social phenomenon, about which later (Weimar) politicians said, that it was one reason for WW I. Because of this all Germans were guilty for forcing the war and had to accept their responsibility. In the article it looks like the population didn’t support the militarism. It was just the other war around. Bismarck’s policy of a “satuierter Staat” (satisfied Country) was not  strongly supported by the Germans.
:Also the sentence “Ein Platz an der Sonne” (a place at the Sun) should be mentioned. It stands for the German demand for colonies.
:Also Wilhelm II’s fleet policy should be mentioned. The german fleet was heavily expanded, which made the British Empire look at Germany anxiously. “Politik der freien Hand”)
:Also some of Wilhelm II’s unpredictable and foolish acts (for example during the second morocco-crisis (“Panthersprung nach Agadir”) or as he wrote the “Krüger Depesche” to congratulate Paul Kruger for fighting down a riot of British settlers, which was forced by the British government) should be placed here.
:Also a link to the Fashoda-crisis and its solution and the Entente Cordiale or the Triple Entente should be amended, as they were referred as a surrounding of Germany by enemies (“Umringt von Feinden”).
:Another matter is, that it is not clear whether Bismarck himself would have been able to keep up his system of treaties for a longer period of time, because of it’s complexity. Some historians believe, that this system had to lead to a new European war, it only was the question, when.
I hope that an English-speaking person will read this and will take him- or herself some time to think of the things I tried to point out.
Indeed it is necessary, as the history part of the Germany article is let’s say … short. They are not even mentioning the Rhine Confederation.
Mit freundlichem Gruße Unwillig zur Registration 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After Bismarck

message: Added all the Chancellors, but the last couple don't show on list. Is there a limit to how many can be entered? GrahamBould 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a limit of 5. It is not intended to list every single office holder (that is better left to the article itself). When there are more than 5, it is standard to give just the first and last. - 52 Pickup 10:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chancellors

message: Does the Area listed apply to its overseas territories, as well?
:No: see  - 52 Pickup 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area? 

message: This article looks pretty close to being ready for GA-status. Perhaps the only things that might be needed are some citations and some formatting issues. What do you think? - 52 Pickup 07:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at what is necessary for GA-status, the article needs to be properly cited. For starters, there are a number of texts in the "Litereature" section, but none actually cited. So that is probably a good place to start. Does anyone actually have access to these references? - 52 Pickup 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ready for GA-examination? 

message: The article States of the German Empire is given in this article in the German Empire#Constituent states of the empire section as a "main article:" link but contains no extra information. The German interwiki link for this particular article is simply the same German subsection of this article (:de:Deutsches Kaiserreich#Gliederung des Deutschen Reiches).
Therefore, I propose that this minor article be merged into this one and this section cleaned up. - 52 Pickup 08:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections. Olessi 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - 52 Pickup 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/Delete: States of the German Empire 

message: As there is some dispute over the inclusion of this paragraph, I have moved it to the talk page.
:Germany in the Hohenzollern period was the only true Protestant (Evangelical) empire in history.  The Indian Empire had its own religious traditions when under Anglican (Catholic-Reformed fusion) rulers who held dominion over a collective of nations (commonly called the British Empire) that were not empires or composing an official empire but also happened to be Protestant.
Although not formally an empire, the Swedish Empire was an expansionary Protestant state as well. I am not sure how relevant the paragraph is for this article, at least for the introduction. Olessi 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Protestants did outnumber Catholics roughly 2 to 1 (which can be mentioned in the article), the Kaiserreich was a secular state (Martin Kitchen's A History Of Modern Germany 1800-2000). Bismarck did not start the Kulturkampf because of pro-Protestant / anti-Catholic views, but because the Prussian government was worried that the Catholics would look to Rome and not the Prussian state. Many of the Liberals (such as Virchow) who supported the Kulturkampf hoped that a Bismarck victory would free the schools from any religious control, be it Protestant or Catholic (Erich Eyck's Bismarck and the German Empire). An attempt to turn the empire into an officially Protestant country would have been opposed by the south and the west. Could you please cite your sources attesting to the German Empire being a Protestant empire? Olessi 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Protestant empire" 

message: A user from German wikipedia gave me a link to a map of German hair color during Imperial Germany. I thought someone might be able to incorporate it into the article. --Ghostexorcist 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no trace of a hair colour image over there now. Varlaam (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  hair color 

message: In the state list, why are the principalities listed below the duchies?  Last time I checked, a prince was above dukes and grand dukes.  Emperor001 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have answered your question at Talk:German nobility#Confused and Talk:Pretender#German thrones. It varies within different systems (for instance, within Germany it is usually definite but may vary between certain countries like German and France, where a prince is higher but is generally only a noble title, not a ruling one). For territories though, it is almost just a case of "that's the way it is". Charles 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When listing predecessor or successor states, it is preferred to only give states that did not exist while the state discussed in the article. That is, Denmark already existed during the time of the German Empire, the Weimar Republic did not. To list absolutely everything would make the box far too big and smaller changes like the gains made by Denmark belong at a lower level: see Province of Schleswig-Holstein, where the changes are given. That said, some of the currently-shown predecessor states (e.g. Kingdom of Bavaria) should not be given as predecessor states since they continued to exist until 1918, albeit now as member states of the German Empire. 52 Pickup (deal) 11:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: State list

message: In 1876, would it have been more common to refer to Königsberg as a German city or a Prussian city? I realize it was technically both, but we're trying to decide how to properly refer to the city over in the Emma Goldman article. One editor wants to refer to it as "the Prussian capital of Königsberg" while another perfers just "Königsberg, Germany". Which is the better choice? Please reply here. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German or Prussian? 

message: Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it.
It's very important.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please give your opinion about [[Talk:Central_Europe#Proposal_II|Proposal II]] which will define [[Central Europe]]

message: This rather large article could be shortened further by moving more detailed content to German colonial empire and History of Germany during World War I, for those feeling ambitious. Olessi (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: The article doesn't discuss the problem separately, only later in Germanization section.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the past several hundred years the population of London has exceeded the combined total populations of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, so it does seem unlikely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  National/linguistic minorities 

message: at what point was the empire at it's greatest size, and do we have a map of it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.219 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  furthest extent of the empire 

message: This is TAKEN WORD FOR WORD from a BBC documentary THE GREAT WAR. I mean WORD FOR WORD. I don't know if that is relevant but shouldn't it be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.137.63 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:      * 1.1 Germany emerges as an industrial power 

message: "Empire" is a bad translation of Reich. With that translation, the UK by itself (England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Ulster) should be called the British Empire, and we don't call it that. France (Frankreich in German) by itself also would be an empire with this use of the word. Empire for us connotes the same as the German word Weltreich, not the same as Reich.  The correct title of this article should be The Second German Reich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.8.117 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Deutsches Kaiserreich, the German Wikipedia equivalent of this article. "Empire" is the accepted translation for "Kaiserreich". XXX antiuser eh? 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It is not obvious at all, and it is a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Scholarly consensus seems to indicate that the term "German Empire" is most appropriate. We need reliable sources, not stamp collecting theories to justify a change like this. Uncle Dick (talk)
There is no "theory" and no "original research" being introduced here, DICK.  It is a document from Wikipedia itself, an image of a postage stamp from the Weimar period bearing the visage of Chancellor Friedrich Ebert and the words "Deutsches Reich."
This conclusively proves to anybody with eyes and a brain that the term Deutsches Reich was also applied to post-imperial Germany. This directly contradicts one claim in the first paragraph, that the term Deutsches Reich ceased to be used in 1918, and is conclusive proof that Deutsches Reich does not mean "German Empire," since Germany after 1918 had no empire and no emperor.
Use that gray matter between your ears just a little bit, please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.3.105 (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the English terms "empire", "emperor," and "imperial" are standard among recent scholars. See for example 1) Berghahn, "Structure and Agency in Wilhelmine Germany: The history of the German Empire, Past, present and Future," (2003) the best source on the historiography; 2) Blanke, Prussian Poland in the German Empire (1981); 3) Cecil, Wilhelm II: Prince and Emperor, 1859–1900 (1989); 4) Mommsen, Imperial Germany 1867–1918 (1995); 5) Reagin, "Recent Work on German National Identity: Regional? Imperial? Gendered? Imaginary?" Central European History 2004; 6) Stürmer, The German Empire, 1870–1918 (2000); 6) Wehler, The German Empire, 1871–1918 (1985) Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rjensen. I see it is now common usage. I found a few more books using that term. I still find it jarring but it is indeed now acceptable usage in English. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The title of this article is WRONG

message: I propose to merge German monarchy into German Empire due to overlapping content.89.191.112.246 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. All facts in German monarchy already exist in German Empire. We only need to delete German monarchy and to establish a redirect to German Empire. Ufim (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Compare with: Monarchy of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom. Seryo93 (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

text: German monarchy is an awful article.  I do think that one could, conceivably, write a good article about the institution of the monarchy in the German Empire from 1871-1918.  It should be redirected without prejudice to the future creation of a useful article. john k (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John. Don't forget that  and other related templates link to German monarchy, which —in addition to describing the imperial monarchy— lists the constituent monarchies within the empire. I would like to see that page remain independent until some editor finds the time to describe royalty and the style of government as it was in pre-republican Germany. As it is now, the page is useful as a basic redirect page for links to monarchies in Germany. Night w (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: In the section: Bismarck's founding of the empire, the author makes the judgment that "rural areas are over-represented." When government representation is based on population alone, less-densely populated areas never have a voice in government, because they always outvoted.  This is the reasoning behind the House of the Senate in the United States. Each state elects two senators, regardless of population.  Canada, in contrast, has no elected senate, and consequently the less-densely populated areas like the West and the North have had no real voice in Government for generations.Landroo (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That there might be legitimate reasons to overrepresent rural areas does not mean that what is going on is not over-representation. john k (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Bias 

message: [this was added by anon, who probably can read Danish better than the rest of us in en.Wikipedia -- the English version; the Danish article seems unaware of the English language literature. Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion from Denmark

message: "the unhindered completion of her Cape to Cairo pursuits"
Yes, Britain and Germany conflict here over Tanganyika and a transcontinental railway line.
But unhindered? No.
Britain had already come to blows with France in 1898 at the Fashoda Incident in the Sudan over France's plan for a transcontinental rail line running horizontally out of Dakar.
Varlaam (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhindered? 

message: The text in this section states that there were 27 constituent states which comprised the German Empire. However, only 26 states are listed in the (very nice) table. Which figure is correct? (And, if in fact 27 is the correct number, then the table will need to be modified by adding the 'missing' state to it, and placed in the appropriate category, i.e. duchies, principalities, etc). Gaussgauss (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituent States of the Empire 

message: As said in the headline, the Sonderweg section is biased. There are many historians who dispute the Sonderweg claims.--R-41 (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki's NPOV rules require representation of all major positions -- and the position supporting Sonderweg comprises many leading scholars.  R-41 should add equally reputable scholars who oppose it, letting readers see the debate themselves. the "bias" rules apply to editors, not to the RS (Reliable Sources.) Rjensen (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonderweg section violates NPOV - it is focused on presenting the German Empire as creating Nazi Germany 

message: The wording of the following sentence suggests that the German Empire has existed for only 47 years, i.e., since 1965.
:During its 47 years of existence, the German Empire operated as an industrial, technological and scientific giant, receiving more Nobel Prizes in science than Britain, France, Russia and the United States combined.
Also, the graph on the cited page doesn't clearly indicate (to me) that Germany has received more prizes than the other countries "combined," nor does the article accompanying the graph. While this fact may be true, I wasn't easily able to verify it.Wikem (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize sentence needs revision 

message: At the bottom the infobox (the right hand sidebar that contains country data etc) is a note regarding the use of the word Reich.  I propose DELETING this note.  
The note refers to a Harper's New Monthly Magazine article in Volume 0063 Issue 376 (September 1881) called: "The German Empire" [pp. 591-603] by Professor Herbert Tuttle (full text at Cornell University digital archive here).  The page number given for the matter the note refers to is correct but the summary given of what professor Tuttle wrote is unhelpful.  
The point prof. Tuttle made in his article revolved around his particular definitions for the use of the term "empire" in:-  the German language in respect of a particular timeframe; as opposed to in the English language and over a different timeframe.   However, notwithstanding its accuracy, the point is such a fine and complex one that its inclusion by way of a brief footnote in an infobox creates a misleading impression.  
I propose its deletion 
1) because the linguistic distinctions being made are academic and moot,2) 
because the point itself is debatable - consider, for example, the use of the word "Reich" in:- Großdeutsches Reich or "The Third Reich"; and in  Heiliges Römisches Reich or "Holy Roman Empire" (the term adopted from 1157 under the rule of  Frederick I for the first German Empire 962–1806), and previously known simply as the  Heiliges Reich or "Holy Empire", and3) because imo these matters are highly pertinent to the article and should be included within the body of the article where the above matters can be addressed in a NPOV manner. 
LookingGlass (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The infobox is for a summary of salient facts and figures, not for a discussion of arcane linguistic points.--Boson (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox - dispute 

message: What is this supposed to mean?
Peter Flass (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was inserted by this edit.--Boson (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it was my typo so I fixed it. (to "high level of mutual distrust") Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonderweg 

message: See article on Total War, as linked to immediately prior to removed statement.1812ahill (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed meaningless statement that American civil war was 1st example of total war. 

message: Is this edit correct? it changed the date of the end of the German Empire from 18 to 28. Can we check it to make sure it's not vandalism? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wilhelm abdicated AS EMPEROR on Nov 9. He abdicated as king of Prussia on Nov 28 (but the kingdon was already defunct, he only had a title left). see for details    Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the end of the German Empire? 

message: Was the official name the German Reich or the German Empire?--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because he's bored, and has absolutely, positutely nothing else to do, whatsoever. (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reich vs. Empire 

message: The list of languages does not include Yiddish, but seems to be an accurate transcription of the source.  My guess is that this was counted as a sort of German and included in that total.  However, its absence form the list does distort the figures and possibly a note should be added in the article to that effect.
Gravuritas (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native languages of the citizens of the German Empire 

message: The article says "This failed, and by October the armies had been in retreat since August". There are two date references. Which one is it, and can we perhaps clean it up so that it is easier to understand?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.183.172.96 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording Issues in WW1 paragraph 

message: It doesn´t make sense to have maps on every single linguistic minority while at the same time having one map representing all of them. There is no extra value for the reader to have this multiple information. It also blows up the article unnecessarily and distracts from the text. Thats why the collection of maps seem to be dispensable.  Greetz Matzkalt2 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The maps do not duplicate any information in the text. Instead they add specific information, so that if a person is interested in one group (Like my own Danish ancestors) he can readily spot it. People uninterested in the topic very easily skip over it and are not slowed down our troubles or hindered in any way.  The one overall map is very difficult for anyone to handle unless they have an excellent grasp to begin with of German geography. We cannot expect that level in the average reader to the English Wikipedia.  If we have the specialized map doing the view overall map-- yes that shows where German imperialism was adding groups (like the Poles and the French) who did not like what happened to them. The French hatred of the Alsace-Lorraine seizure was a major factor in French foreign-policy leading to 1914. These areas were sliced off Germany in 1919, in large part because of issues of language and minorities. Rjensen (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: it's too hard to understand the single map, which comprises multiple overlays. Groups overlap in complex ways that get lost in the composite map, and there is no need here to "save" space or paper. Rjensen (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic maps 

message: Are you sure, Czechoslovakia is successor state of German Empire and GE is to day part of Czech republic? I have doubts, Czechoslovakia was successor of Austo-hungary and the borders seems pretty clear from map. However i am not sure about Silesia, so i do not edit.--94.112.30.129 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechoslovakia 

message: The template there seems to block the possibility to enlarge the thumb of the map with the administrative districts. Anyone have a solution for that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean this one Template:German Empire States? I suppose you would have to change everyone of the captions. Uncle Doj (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Hello ,can somebody puut the provence names on the map they should be ,i cant do it becoause cluebot ng thinks everything i do is vandalising  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parshdarsh57 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map  

message: im new to this ,cann you fix the edit i made please i dobnt know how to fix it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parshdarsh57 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I rolled back your edits for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind at least giving a reason for reverting my rollback? The article is not acceptable in the state you leave it in, so if you don't fix this in the next minutes, I will revert once again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, I have no clue what you are trying to fix... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  help with map  

message: The description of it in the Template:Infobox former country says "Full name in English, displayed as the title at the top of the infobox" instead here I see a German word??? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The names used in (at least some) treaties are "Deutsches Reich" (in the German version) and "German Empire" (in the English version), so it seems reasonable to treat these as the official long names unless reliable evidence to the contrary can be provided.--Boson (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conventional_long_name is not an English word 

message: In November 2011 this passage was added:
:Bismarck once contrasted his nation's foreign policy difficulties with the easy situation of the United States (the only strong power in the Western Hemisphere), saying "The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish."
Trying to source this quote I can find only one attribution of it to Bismarck on Google Books, and that comes from a 2014 book which cites no reference and so might have got it from Wikipedia.  The earliest appearance of it in Google Books, dating from 1954, attributes it to ambassador Jules Jusserland (I think that must be Jean Jules Jusserand).  Since there seems no way of sourcing this quote to Bismarck, and since reattributing to Jusserand would leave it pretty well irrelevant to this article, I'm going to remove it.  Anyone is welcome to put it back, of course, if they can show it has some business being there.--Antiquary (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Americans are a very lucky people..." 

message: This sentence:
Although the Kingdom of Prussia contained most of the Empire's population and territory, it played a lesser role. As Dwyer (2005) points out, Prussia's "political and cultural influence had diminished considerably" by the 1890s.
...is not really correct. Prussian culture became essentially German culture since 1871. Thoughts?Ernio48 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I suggest some wording about the essence of Prussia being one of the many kingdoms constituting the empire leads to some split of power, but just its sheer size would guarantee its place as the powerhouse of the empire. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Prussian and German influence

message: I'd like to set up automatic archiving, probably just using the default parameter set, on this very long and rather out-of-date page. Feel free to comment if you wish. Thanks DBaK (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Do these changes by  need discussion? It looks like the article has already been round the houses a bit on this, and I'm slightly nervous about the HTML note being changed without consensus. But maybe it's OK? Not my specialist field! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name changes 

message: The article talks about Frisian. The respective articles are 
West Frisian language and Frisian languages. Hence the wording Frisian should be replaced.Sarcelles (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frisian 

message: How is it that some 40% of the lead section is dedicated to World War I, when the German Empire was about much more than its participation in the war? It should be rewritten.Ernio48 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the focus on WW1 in the WP:LEAD is WP:UNDUE weight, if the German Empire existed for 48 years, so much of the lead should not be devoted to its last 5 years of existence. Particularly submarine and convoy tactics are too detailed. I've shortened it a bit. AadaamS (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170315175229/http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322 to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322
*Added  tag to https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002369133%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I deleted "largely sanctioned" from the sentence "This left a post-war, largely sanctioned federal republic to manage a devastated and unsatisfied populace."  The reason is that "sanctioned" in this context appears to mean "approved", one of the two contradictory meanings of "sanction".  If it means "penalized" or "punished", it appears out of nowhere.  I don't think it's necessary or useful here anyhow, but if it were to be retained it would have to be explained.
Besides that, the article still needs a lot of copyediting to improve poorly written sentences.  I did some (up to "Religion", inclusive) but time constraints stopped me there.  Zaslav (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: See MOS:LEAD. It is now transcluded into the Portal:German Empire as the introduction, so both would benefit by a bit of copyediting. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: yes the focus on naval warfare tactics were clearly too detailed so I shortened the lead a bit. It also places/placed an WP:UNDUE weight on WW1. AadaamS (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, That is a step in the right direction. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is too long 

message: It seems to me there is a glaring content omission, in the lack of a section entitled, "Form of government".  As the article now stands,  one would be hard pressed, reading either the lead or the article body, to say exactly what form of government it was.  There is information in the Infobox naming the type(s) of government, but this information is unsourced, and there is no detail.  Nor are the terms Federal semi-constitutional monarchy or Federal parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy to be found anywhere in the article, outside the infobox.
As a concrete example: I was looking at the Kulturkampf article, where I wished to wikilink the expression German Imperial government in the first sentence to what I presumed would be a "Government" section here. However, I found no such section, or other anchorable target for such a link, so I was not able to add it. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section: Form of government 

message: 1) Webster unabridged (3rd) say's it's been standard usage in English since Middle English. 2) There are several cites from Middle ages in OED. 3) Here's an example from 1678: "The Princes, and Towns of the Empire,..acknowledg the Keyser for their Soveraign"  4) Thomas Carlyle (1858) used it  5) London The Times = 10 Aug 1888   "The author's personal intercourse with the late Kaiser."  The RS use it in scholarly titles: 6) Christopher Clark, Kaiser Wilhelm II: A Life in Power (2009).  7) For this ruler the RS much less often use "emperor."  Most recent books: 8) Germany and the Middle East: From Kaiser Wilhelm II to Angela Merkel (2018); 9) Wilhelm II: The Kaiser's Personal Monarchy, 1888-1900 (2017); 10) The Prussian Princesses: The Sisters of Kaiser Wilhelm II (2014); 11) The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II And the First World War (2015). also scholarly journals:  12) "The Kaiser in the Federal State, 1871–1918." German History (2016); 13) "'My Name is Ozymandias' The Kaiser in Exile." Central European History etc etc  Rjensen (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaiser is the german translation for emperor, there will be no change, end of story! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "end of story" no- INVENTION of story with no sources.  No reliable sources provided!.  where does "emperor" come from in this case?  The Germans do not use it and the English language RS do not use it. The English reliable sources use the English word "Kaiser" --it comes from Middle English 800 years ago says Oxford English Dictionary. The only source  given at German Emperor is a defunct amateur website focused on English regiments and military units "http://regiments.org/biography/royals/1859wilG.htm"  that is not a reliable published secondary source on German topics. It closed down years ago. The only other sources in "German Emperor" use "Kaiser" -- eg the bibliography gives: Hull, Isabel V. (2004), The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1888–1918. and footnote 8 =  Wilhelm II (1922). The Kaiser's Memoirs. Translated by Thomas R. Ybarra. The use of "emperor" is uncommon in the English reliable published sources.  Rjensen (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Having gone to german-class for several years i tell you, Kaiser means emperor, there is a reason this article always has used the title emperor rather than kaiser. If we have proper translations for titles it is prefered to use the english translation rather than the native-language word. Also i have never in my history-research come across the title kaiser being used for leaders of non-german speaking countries, so wether it is used in english as well is irrelevant when the translation is more commonly used. Some historians use the title either because of a lack of knowledge regarding the german language or in order to distinguish the german emperors from other leaders, an example regarding lack of understanding for another language among english-speaking historians is the frequent use of "Jarl" when talking about norwegian earls during the viking era. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaiser is a standard  English word and is preferred by RS in this case 

message: "Otto von Bismarck, the visionary statesman who unified Germany with the help of his skillful political moves and the exploitation of encountered opportunities". This seems to be quite flattering for Bismarck, especially since he is a historically controversial figure. Please share your opinion on this matter. Narwaro (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flattery of Bismarck? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion