Talk:Spiegel affair

message: What is "Obrigkeitsstaat" ? Thanx 68.39.174.91 05:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Authoritarian state; I inserted the translation in the article; I, too, think it's needed.  Tempshill 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: ...any discussion of exactly what the claims were, or why a treason charge might have been filed. I think the article would be greatly improved if a few examples of the sort of complaints in the original der spiegel article were presented.
Maury 02:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems to be missing... 

message: Was there any tie-in between the Spiegel arrests and the U.S-Soviet confrontation which was taking place during those same weeks?
:No, the timing is a coincidence, those events unrelated. However some have suggested that because Chancellor Adenauer was distracted by Cuba, he did not pay sufficent attention to what Strauss was doing on October 26th (climax of the Cuba-missile crisis) and therefor got into deeper trouble than necessary. Nevfennas 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your basis for definitely stating they are completely unrelated? I'm pretty sure that the Minister of Defense would be aware that the US went to DEFCON 2, and with war imminent, and him in charge of an incompetent military in the direct path of the Red Army, he may feel the need to do something. When events of such importance are going on in the world, you can't just make a blanket statement they would not affect the actions of others. Repeter (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, though, he was neither incompetent himself nor in charge of an incompetent military; nor did the Spiegel article say so, if read in its entirety. What it did say was that the Federal Armed Forces did not pass further than the lowest NATO classification, "in good conditions, ready to fight back". But then, the Federal Armed Forces were built to include a number of just below 500000 soldiers, which it had probably reached or almost reached at the time, and it had sworn in its first advance-party of just over 100 soldiers less than seven years ago and was built completely from scratch (though with some war-experience in the older soldiers). You don't get a powerful army in a heartbeat.--2001:A61:260C:C01:455C:E5D6:8760:20CC (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Missile Crisis 

message: Should it say "West Germany" of "FRG" everywhere rather than "Germany"? A Geek Tragedy 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology 2

message: Please put some sources in the article. A newspaper article could do. Thanks. --Ben  T/C  23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources missing 

message: The usual practice, e.g. in Strauss' own Wikipedia article and Rudolf Hess' article, is to transcribe ß as ss in German names when written about in English (with a mention of German spelling in main article), because most English-speakers would not know how to pronounce ß: this is how a German friend of mine has her name transcribed on a university register in England. Kingal86 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely, Kingal86. The use of such Germanisms in English-language articles is simply indefensible. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of ß(es-tsett) in German names in English

message: The article says the Federal Constitutional Court "issued a groundbreaking ruling in August 1966 that laid down the basics of the freedom of the press for decades to come". I think it would be helpful to have information in the article on what this groundbreaking ruling actually said. Is there anyone who speaks German who might be interested in translating the corresponding information from the German article or adding it from sources? Thanks! aoxiang翱翔(user)(talk) 07:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, you don't get in German lexica more than that, usually; and actually, this is the important thing if you know the traditions of Continental law. - The case came before the Constitutional Court, and the Constitutional Court took this occasion to delve deeply into the realm of press-freedom theory, in a ruling still cited to this day as reference. Oh, and then, with four votes out of eight (because a "guilty" requires five votes), it said that despite this and despite that the actions of the Federal Government were still not hard enough to actually be considered a breaking the freedom of the press*; but this is rather little known.--2001:A61:260C:C01:455C:E5D6:8760:20CC (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Note: * One has to consider that the Federal Government did not take issue with the Spiegel's opinion, but with the fact that it had published Armed Forces internal information.--2001:A61:260C:C01:455C:E5D6:8760:20CC (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents of the 1966 ruling