Talk:East Germany

Well, I recently uploaded a file that was East Germany anthem because you might need to see the final version of the anthem that I found on YT. Here's the file if you need: File:Auferstanden aus Ruinen - Vocal.ogg

@Nikkimaria and RickyBennison:I have problems with the descriptions in the infobox: East Germany was never a federal republic and East Germany was transformed into a parliamentary/liberal democratic republic on 17 June 1990. Just because the SED lost power in 1989 does not mean that the entire state structure suddenly became liberal democratic/parliamentarian. Considering that the state stopped more or less functioning four months later one wonders if that is even relevant (and not just complicates the picture).

I propose the following description: Unitary communist state. It is short and not misleading (except for the last four months). But this article is not about the last four months of the GDR.... and people coming here are mostly not interested in the last four months of GDR existence... TheUzbek (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I also cannot figure out where this "federal" designation until 1952 came from as a similar claim is not made in the article body. I agree with TheUzbek that the current description is convoluted, likely inaccurate, and not backed up in the article body (which it should be, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The GDR was also never a parliamentary republic in the liberal democratic sense as the SED conceding power did not mean an immediate change in government structures or constitutional powers. The new wording proposed by TheUzbek is concise and accurate to what is stated in the Government section of the article body. Yue🌙 19:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Free elections were held in the states under Soviet occupation in 1946 and the states became part of the GDR when it was established in 1949. New elections were then held in each state with only SED approved candidates allowed. The states were then abolished in 1952. (See: 1946 Soviet occupation zone state elections.) So it was a federation in the beginning.

I agree though that there was no constitutional change when the SED lost power. The government merely allowed candidates it otherwise would have rejected. TFD (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

But those elections were held three years before the establishment of the GDR... TheUzbek (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

They were, and their elected governments continued to operate after the states were federated. That's typical of federations: a group of states join together to form one country while retaining residual powers in areas not delegated to the central government. TFD (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we are mixing hairs. The 1949 GDR constitution did not establish a federal republic (and nothing in the document implies it). Article 1 of the GDR constitution states, "Germany is an indivisible democratic republic, the foundations of which are the German Laender. The Republic decides on all issues which are essential to the existence and development of the German people as a whole, all other issues being decided upon by independent action of the Laender. As a rule, decisions of the Republic are carried out by the Laender." This is a strange form of federalism, and a federalism that stresses centralisation. I cant find a third oarty source that describes the GDR as fedeeal either... TheUzbek (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The constitution was based on the Weimar Republic and is similar to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, both of which are described as federal republics. I cannot find much about the federal period, but otoh that means that there are no sources it was a centralized state either. The Soviet Union btw is described as a "Federal Marxist-Leninist state". TFD (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The essence of federalism is that essential powers are delegated to the central government. These include such things as foreign policy, the military and currency. TFD (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The articles Administrative divisions of East Germany and Chamber of States have paragraphs that suggest both a de jure provisional federal structure and a de facto unitary system before the 1952 administrative reforms. However, these passages are unsourced. Yue🌙 17:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It was defacto because the SED controlled all the states after the first election and only SED approved candidates were allowed to participate in the second election. Since SED officials took their orders from the party, which also administered the central government, it was a defacto unitary state. TFD (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Then what about just "Communist state"? TheUzbek (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I would keep the last four months as a separate stage. It is listed on Wikipedia as the Modrow government. The four months itself is split into November 1989 to February 1990 (socialist) and February to March 1990 (National unity government). Perhaps you could say something like 'Transitional: Socialist to National unity government'? RickyBennison (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Modrow government was the executive organ of the state, and not the entire state system. That Modrow was a reformist does not mean that the state form changed either. TheUzbek (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The fomal political system did not change. TFD (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The Volkskammer removed the provision guaranteeing the SED's monopoly on power on December 1, 1989, de jure ending East Germany's communist rule and turning it into a parliamentary republic, as is also described in Harry Möbis' 1999 book "Von der Hoffnung gefesselt - zwischen Stoph und Mittag - unter Modrow" Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground Stop it, just Stop! TheUzbek (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground How can a system based on unified power suddenly become a fusion of power system. Just Stop forcing your views and Stop pretend that you know better than everyone else. TheUzbek (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheUzbek The 1 December 1989 constitutional amendment de jure ending communist rule isn't a interpretation or "a view" of mine, it's their stated intention and a constitutional, historic and political fact that nobody else brought up in the previous discussion and you keep pretending doesn't exist. "How can a system based on unified power suddenly become a fusion of power system." de facto separation of powers?! Changing it in the way I did also brings it inline with the infobox on the Constitution of East Germany article or the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. By your interpretation, the de Maizière Government ran a "communist state", which would be an unfathomably pedantic and asinine take. And IMHO you'd be spitting in the face of the 400 freely elected Volkskammer members. The German Historical Museum correctly points out that during the Wende, the GDR "was decided on by a parliamentary democracy": https://www.dhm.de/programm/tagungen-und-symposien/archiv/das-letzte-jahr-der-ddr/. Unlike yourself, mainstream historians aren't concerned with niche Marxist-Leninist constitutional semantics. Oh, and btw "But this article is not about the last four months of the GDR...." it is. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You are so full of yourself that you forget the fact that unified power was abolished on 17 June 1990. You need to differentiate between communism as a belief and the communist state aka the communist form of government. You clearly aren't capable of that. Moldova elected communists to power in liberal democratic elections, but did Moldova become a communist state? Of course not since the underlying institutions were liberal democratic... TheUzbek (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Moldova elected communists to power in liberal democratic elections" did they have a leading role in the constitution? No, they didn't. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and that is my point. Did East Germany practice fusion of power and a parliamentary system since the SED lost power? No, it wasn't instituted before 17 June 1990. TheUzbek (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Did East Germany practice fusion of power and a parliamentary system since the SED lost power? Yes, certainly de facto; read Möbis 1999. Or the Volkskammer hansard past October 1989. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How can that have happened when, legally speaking, the courts and the procuracy were directly accountable to the Volkskammer? In January 1990, the People's Chamber still ordered the East German Supreme Court what to do... How can that be when the procuracy was still directly accountable to the People's Chamber for all its work, and was even criticised by the People's Chamber for it? They even removed the officeholder in question twice in 1990. This is factually incorrect. TheUzbek (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"While founded on the basis of a nominally liberal democratic constitution with states and a bourgeois office of President, East Germany was de facto ruled as a one-party state from its inception. The 1968 constitution enshrined the communist system into law, unequivocally declaring that "the leadership of the state is to be exercised through the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party". The later clause was struck by the Volkskammer on 1 December 1989."

Everything here is wrong. The GDR was established as a people's democratic state based on a supreme state organ of power and unified power (notice article 3 & 49; how is that the People's Chamber is supreme, meaning it stands above all othe state organs, and that all power emanates through it even liberal democratic?), and not a state based on a liberal democratic facade. In 1968, the GDR officially adopted a constitution that said it had established the socialist mode of production and, in turn, a socialist state (communism). I don't think the office of the president is considered bourgeois in itself, so why is that even mentioned? Total confusion, total misunderstanding of Marxist–Leninist doctrine, and complete arroganse. Stop this. TheUzbek (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"Everything here is wrong.", "Total confusion, total misunderstanding of Marxist–Leninist doctrine, and complete arroganse." you're actually being the hyperbolic, foaming-at-the-mouth arrogant prick at this point. "The GDR was established as a people's democratic state based on a supreme state organ of power and unified power" Again, actual mainstream historians don't care about your niche Marxist–Leninist legalese: https://www.hdg.de/lemo/kapitel/geteiltes-deutschland-modernisierung/reformversuche-im-osten/neue-verfassung.html and I trust these guys over some low-life commie legal theory nerd. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the article people's democratic state based on Marxist-Leninist writers or Western scholarly works? Ah, the last one. How do I know? I wrote it.... They do apparently care, and you even mention it yourself when pointing to the 1968 constitution. TheUzbek (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

We're running in circles. You insist on communist legal terminology which can't be the only way to categorize government_type. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

No. The term, communist state, is a non-communist term invented by Western scholars. TheUzbek (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Careful coverage of this socialist state excludes summarizing it as unitary communist at any point in time. It need not be attributed a federal parliamentary system either. Our choice is not between these two. East Germany is a vital Soviet satellite in Europe that is not Poland and not West Germany. It's a unique and complicated system that should only have the simple description of Communist as an attributed claim. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

According to https://www.jstor.org/stable/45308159

If for the frame of government the con-tours of Weimar were preserved at least out-wardly, they are openly discarded in what purports to be the federal structure. The Constitution is definitely slanted so far to-wards centralization that, quite unlike Bonn, no serious obstacle would prevent an out-right unitary government. This merely con-firms the situation existing in present-day Eastern Germany, which is largely a cen-tralized State with little if any statehood individuality visible among the five Laender.

and

While not explicitly men-tioned it is implied that the "bloc" tech-nique will result in the same kind of "unani-mity" that prevails in the Volkskammer. If the measure of federalism consists in the actual power of the second chamber the German Democratic Republic is factually a unitary State.

and finally

This shape of things allows the conclu-sion that the German Democratic Republic, rather than a federal State, is a unitary State with some degree of decentralization.

directly state that Easy Germany was a de facto unitary state but appearing to be a de jure federation during this time.

as well as other sources that also state:

• Of the nine states that once made up communist Europe, six were unitary and three were federal. The six unitary states are now five states (East Germany has reunited with the Federal Republic), while the three federal states -- Yugoslavia, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia -- are now 22 independent states.
• After the occupation, all political parties were banned in Germany, but the Soviet command brought the communist emigrants to Berlin, led by Walter Ulbricht. In April 1946, the Socialist United Party of Germany (SED) was created, beginning the formation of a communist unitary government.
• On 26 July 1946, the head of the Soviet administration (SMAD) General Fiodor Bokov summoned the SED leadership headed by Wilhelm Pieck. The theme of the meeting was the possible construction of a unitary government for the whole of Germany and the elaboration of a national constitution (indicated with the term Reichsverfassung, following the German tradition maintained also in the Weimar era).
• Various models were discussed for a federalization of East Germany, ranging from a Land called “East Germany” to a variant with sixteen Länder. In the end, the division of Länder was returned to the way it had been before 1952. (this implies that East Germany wasn't a federal state to begin with)
• The communist system is politically unitary; and no unitary system can endure if the rationale of that unity is called into question. Ideology, in other words, pro-vides the ration d'etre of communist regimes, and this is par-ticularly true in the case of a divided nation such as Germany.

So therefore, we should say that in the infobox that East Germany was a Unitary communist state but add a footnote that state it was De jure federation but inaction acted like a de facto unitary state GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, TheUzbek, Yue, The Four Deuces, Maxwhollymoralground, and EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth: repinging commentators to get their opinions GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist I think "Unitary communist state [I don't like this term, 'communist state' is such a technically loaded term of little meaning to the average reader, though I'm sure TheUzbek disagrees, I prefer 'one-party state']" is enough, there's not much sense in adding further modifiers. And for most of East Germany's history (1952-1990), it was a unitary state. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground Indeed it was but I do also would like to add two more government types as well, something like

• Federal communist state (before 1952)
• Unitary communist state (1952–1990)
• Unitary parliamentary republic (1990)

Multiple articles such as Rhodesia utilise it well if I have to say so myself.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this, as it would not improve the infobox. TheUzbek (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Improve? I think it does improve the infobox as the first and last free and fair elections had the CDU winning against them, and they also did abolish the one party thing as well?

So would still be inaccurate to still call them a "communist state" even though they are multiparty. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

They still practiced unified state power despite the SED's loss of power. A state form does not disappear out of the blue just because a party won an election. Communist state institutions did not just disappear on the night they lost power: East Germany was still a state with no branches of government that did not practice parliamentarism. This is an incorrect suggestion. I advise you to read about unified state power and democratic centralism: communist states were not liberal states monopolised by communist parties. States don't automatically become liberal when the party loses power. You are missing some facts here. TheUzbek (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I would say its too general. For example, Ba'athist Syria, Ba'athist Iraq, Nasser's Egypt and Socialist Tanzania were one party states, but they did not practice unified power. All these states were one-party states, but extremely presidential. East Germany was not presidential at all, but rather, very collective. Now we know that the collective was weak and incapable of holding Honecker to account, but Honecker was no autocratic president either. One-party state does not really clarify how East Germany was ruled, or more specifically, how the party ruled through the state to rule society. TheUzbek (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the status quo is sufficient - no need to pile on descriptors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making changes to the article, there have been 11 reversions in the past 24h and I could easily report this to WP:ANEW. Stick to the discussion. Use Wikipedia:Third opinion if the disagreement continues. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I, wholeheartedly agree! Thank you for stating this: my whole is that should have been discussed on the talk page, but he was forced his views on Wikipedia. If the community faultly goes for his position, that is fine, but forcing it is not acceptable. TheUzbek (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the point of disagreement: the SED's loss of power in late 1989 marked the beginning of the end of East Germany's communist state and the start of a political transformation toward liberal democracy. However, this transformation was not instantaneous at the constitutional–institutional level. The constitutional system of unified state power remained in place until mid-1990. At the practical level, this continuity is also reflected in the fact that the communist Modrow government remained in office until 12 April 1990. The 17 June 1990 constitutional amendments abolished the unified state power system and introduced a parliamentary system characterized by executive–legislative fusion of power and judicial independence. In that sense, the fall of the SED initiated the transition, but the formal replacement of the communist state system occurred later. It would therefore be misleading, from a constitutional–institutional perspective (government type/form of government), to describe East Germany as having a parliamentary system prior to 17 June 1990. Five months later, the state reunified with West Germany. Adding further detail to the infobox would not improve accessibility; these distinctions are better explained in the article body rather than the infobox. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

the STASI is not enough mentioned in the articles ~2026-39260-5 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

the luxury western lifestyle of GDR Government in the Wandlitz Village ist not enough mentioned in the articles ~2026-39260-5 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

the existence of parallel purchase path of consumer goods is not mentioned - such as payments on private base in D-Mark for better service by privateer businesses .. or the possibility to purchase Western world consumer goods by "FORUM", either with D-Mark as a gift from Western family relatives, or by spending a lot of GDR money for more upscaled quality products ..some of them even initially produced in GDR for international export ..or produced in GDR as a contracted or licensed "low wage" production area for Western-Germany companies

..this should all be mentioned and put into detailed aspect, for a way more intellectual understanding on why so called "Ossi" mentality is somewhat that of an anti-government Redneck self governing attitude ..and how livin in GDR was to be for us, who had stayed in the East - even with portions of own family livin in Western World ~2026-39260-5 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)